state board meeting agenda - sbctc · however, it is about much more than new software. ctclink is...

STATE BOARD MEETING AGENDA

Clover Park Technical College Building 3, Rotunda 4500 Steilacoom Blvd. SW, Lakewood, WA 98499 Study Session: Wednesday, May 1 // 1 p.m. to 7 p.m. Business Meeting: Thursday, May 2 // 7:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. Board members Anne Fennessy, chair // Wayne Martin, vice chair // Jay Reich // Carol Landa McVicker // Phyllis Gutierrez Kenney // Fred Whang // Ben Bagherpour // Crystal Donner // Chelsea Mason

Jan Yoshiwara, executive director // Beth Gordon, executive assistant

Statutory Authority: Laws of 1991, Chapter 28B.50 Revised Code of Washington

May 1 Study Session

Time Item Activity Tab

1 p.m. Welcome and introductions Anne Fennessy, chair

Discuss

1:05 p.m. State Board Priorities – Equity and Diversity Jan Yoshiwara and Melia LaCour

Discuss Tab 1

3 p.m. Break

3:15 p.m. State Board Priorities – ctcLink project Grant Rodeheaver/Christy Campbell

Discuss Tab 2

4:15 p.m. 2021-23 Major Capital Projects Scoring Criteria Resolution 19-05-17 Wayne Doty

Discuss Tab 3

4:30 p.m. 19-21 Operating Budget Decision Points Cherie Berthon

Discuss Tab 4

5 p.m. Host College Presentation President Loveday

5:30 p.m. Travel to dinner location

6 p.m. State Board Dinner and Discussion State Board Member, Fred Whang’s Residence 55 Broadway, Tacoma, WA 98402

7 p.m. Adjournment

May 2 Regular Business Meeting


7:30 a.m. Breakfast

8 a.m. Welcome and introductions Anne Fennessy, chair

8:06 a.m. Adoption of meeting agenda Anne Fennessy, chair

Action

8:08 a.m. Approval of consent agenda a. Seattle Central College, property disposal

Resolution 19-05-15 b. Skagit Valley College, local expenditure, increase for soccer field

Resolution 19-05-16 c. Approval of 2019-20 state board meeting dates

Resolution 19-05-18 d. March 28, 2019, State Board Meeting Minutes

Major Capital Projects Criteria Resolution 19-05-17

Action Tab 5 Tab 3

8:10 a.m. Baccalaureate Proposals Joyce Hammer/Nate Humphrey

Discuss Tab 6

9 a.m. Baccalaureate Approvals Resolutions 19-05-19 to 19-05-22 Joyce Hammer/Nate Humphrey

Action Tab 7

10 a.m. Best Practices Approval Resolution 19-05-23 Ed McCallister

Action Tab 8

10:15 a.m. Seattle Central College Air Right Lease for Student Housing Resolution 19-05-24 Wayne Doty

Action Tab 9

10:40 a.m. Centralia College Ground Lease For Training Facility Resolution 19-05-25 Wayne Doty

Action Tab 10

11 a.m. Break

11:10 a.m. Legislative Session Update Arlen Harris

Discuss Tab 11

11:30 a.m. Labor Report

Discuss

11:40 a.m. ACT Report Kim Tanaka

Discuss


11:45 a.m. WACTC Report Bob Knight, WACTC Chair, Clark College

Discuss

11:55 a.m. Open Public Comment Discuss

12 p.m. Executive Director Report Jan Yoshiwara

Discuss

12:30 p.m. Break (Lunch served for Board members.)

12:45 p.m. Chair Report and Board Discussion

2 p.m. Adjournment Next meeting: June 26-27, 2019 Big Bend Community College, Moses Lake

EXECUTIVE SESSION: Under RCW 42.30.110, an Executive Session may be held. Action from the Executive Session may be taken, if necessary, as a result of items discussed in the Executive Session.

PLEASE NOTE: Times above are estimates only. The Board reserves the right to alter the order of the agenda. Reasonable accommodations will be made for persons with disabilities if requests are made at least seven days in advance. Efforts will be made to accommodate late requests. Please contact the Executive Director’s Office at 360-704-4309.

TAB 1

STUDY SESSION ITEM May 1, 2019

Tab 1

State Board Priorities – Equity and Diversity

Brief Description One of the Board’s six priorities is to eliminate equity gaps for students in the college system. This agenda item is the third meeting in a series to develop an equity policy statement that reflects the values of State Board members on equity, diversity and inclusion.

Background information and analysis Eliminating equity gaps is central to the Board’s priorities to increase access and enrollment and to improve completion rates for degree, certificate and diploma seeing students. Over the past two years the Board has had several presentations related to enrollment patterns and student outcomes by race and income, and the diversity of faculty and staff in the college system. To promote a collective vision for the college system at the March meeting, leaders from the state trustees association (ACT), the presidents association (WACTC), faculty unions, and State Board senior staff and members of the agency’s diversity committee will participated in the training on leading with racial equity from Melia LaCour. Ms. LaCour provided additional training and facilitated a discussion to begin defining the Board’s vision for leading with racial equity. In 2006, the State Board adopted a vision statement for the college system: Build strong communities, individuals and families, and achieve greater global competitiveness and prosperity for the state and its economy by raising the knowledge and skills of the state’s residents. The Board may wish to revise this vision statement to reflect its expressed values on equity and diversity. A work group of participants (Board members, presidents, trustee, chief diversity and equity officer, faculty, students, state board staff) from the March Board meeting has met twice to develop a draft vision statement for Board consideration. Melia LaCour will facilitate a discussion with the Board to review the current draft from the work group. The work group will meet again after the May Board meeting to integrate Board member and further work group participant’s feedback into a final draft vision statement for Board consideration in June.

Potential questions • What equity values do Board members wish to include in the policy statement? • Should the equity policy statement be integrated into the Board’s vision statement?

Recommendation/preferred result Staff recommend a robust round table discussion on equity and diversity with college system leaders and will review and provide feedback on proposed statements to jointly develop an equity policy statement for the college system.

Policy Manual Change Yes ☐ No ☒ Prepared by: Jan Yoshiwara, executive director, 360-704-4355, [email protected]

TAB 2

1


Tab 2

ctcLink Project Update

Brief Description

At its core, ctcLink is the implementation of a single, centralized suite of online tools that provides students, faculty and staff on-demand access to a more modern and efficient way of doing their daily college business. However, it is about much more than new software. ctcLink is an unprecedented business transformation project for all 34 colleges and the State Board agency. It will bring lasting change to the way the SBCTC and colleges do business locally and together as a system. As one college recently put it, “It’s not simply a matter of adapting to new software … it’s about adapting to the change in how we work.”

The project has made significant strides since the State Board requested a full project report one year ago. State Board staff will give a comprehensive, high-level progress report and discuss key activities, including status of the Pilot Remediation Phase, the current deployment schedule for all colleges, key project risks and mitigation measures, project budget status, and an update on local college engagement and shared ownership of the success of ctcLink on each campus.

Staff will reiterate the importance of transparency in all aspects of the project, including ongoing system-wide input and involvement. The project's commitment to this approach since restarting the project has helped instill confidence among stakeholders that ctcLink is on the right track and truly realigned for success.

How does this item link to the State Board’s 2018-19 Priorities? The ctcLink project is one of the six strategic priorities endorsed by the State Board for 2018-19.

Background information and analysis Based on results from a readiness assessment performed in 2010 by a leading technology firm, the community and technical college system embarked on an enterprise resource planning (ERP) project to replace the 35-year-old legacy system used by all 34 colleges and the SBCTC.

Following extensive planning and a formal RFP process, the ctcLink project kicked off in 2013 and three pilot colleges deployed into the ctcLink/PeopleSoft environment in August 2015. After a difficult go-live with the pilot colleges, an external Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) was performed. Based on the IV&V findings, further deployments were put on hold while the project entered a Pilot Remediation phase. The Remediation phase was officially closed in December 2017, with conditions of a plan and timeline approved by all parties to complete outstanding Remediation items, while also moving the project forward.

The original implementation partner left the project and a new director with extensive PeopleSoft and higher education project implementation experience was hired to get the project back on track. In collaboration with a group of college project and organizational change managers, project leadership developed a detailed plan and timeline for implementing ctcLink to all colleges by 2021.

TAB 2

2

In addition, Washington State’s Office of the Chief Information Officer required a new project Investment Plan and Technology Budget prior to the restart of the project. The updated plan—along with a budget that supports it—was developed and approved by system leadership and external (oversight) groups in January 2018.

An enormous amount of work has taken place since the project restarted and deployment groups 2 and 3 officially kicked off, with deployment groups 4, 5 and 6 close behind. However, a project of this magnitude and complexity is never easy and will require constant monitoring and engagement at all levels and stages. All college leaders have been advised that having a dedicated project manager in place and working now—regardless of deployment group—is critical to the success of ctcLink at their college. While there have been starts and stops with the project in the past, the message is clear that the project is back on track and the time is now for all colleges to be engaged in ctcLink at some level.

Potential questions

• Is the ctcLink system fully functioning and working well for the pilot colleges? What are the outlying issues that need to be resolved from both a functionality and change management perspective?

• What are the top risks for the project now and how are they being mitigated?

• Are colleges engaged at the levels they need to be and are they getting adequate support, both from their college leadership and the project/SBCTC teams?

• What are some best practices already in place at colleges and positive aspects of the new project

methodology that we want to focus on and build upon to aid in a successful implementation for everyone?

Recommendation/preferred result State Board members will engage in an open discussion and have a clear understanding of the project status, current risks and critical success factors for ctcLink.

Policy Manual Change Yes ☐ No ☒

Prepared by: Christy Campbell, ctcLink project director

360-704-3919, [email protected]

CTCLINK STATUS UPDATESTATE BOARD MEETING, MAY 1, 2019

• Jan Yoshiwara – SBCTC Executive Director; ctcLink Executive Sponsor; cELC Co-Chair

• Joyce Loveday – Clover Park Technical College President; cELC Co-Chair

• Grant Rodeheaver – SBCTC Deputy Executive Director for IT; ctcLink Project Sponsor

• Christy Campbell – ctcLink Project Director

2

CTCLINK PROJECT EVOLUTION

Recruitment & AdmissionsStudent RecordsAcademic AdvisingFinancial AidHighpoint Mobile & Message CenterStudent FinancialsSelf-Service (Student, Faculty, Advisor)Campus Community (3Cs)25Live (Room Scheduling) integrationCanvas LMS integrationOnline Admissions Application (OAA)Online Student Enrollment forContinuing Education (OSECE)

HR CorePayroll

Base BenefitsAbsence Management

Time & LaborTalent Acquisition Management

Self-Service (Employee, Manager)

General LedgerBudgets (Commitment Control)

Accounts Payable, Accounts ReceivableExpenses

Billing (eBilling)Grants

ProjectsProject Costing

ContractsCash Management

Purchasing (eProcurement)Asset Management

Financial Gateway

Application Portal (Gateway)Single Sign-on PeopleSoftSecurity

DataLink (Data Repository)Address Correction (Runner Tech)User Productivity Kit (UPK)Enterprise Interaction HubProcess SchedulerWork Centers (HCM, FIN)Reporting Tools: Query, Oracle Business

Intelligence (OBIA/OBIEE), nVision

3

Campus Solutions Finance

Human Capital

ManagementOther

• In Progress: Continuing Education, Online Admissions Application, Budget Planning, Physical Asset Inventory Tracking, Accessibility

• Not purchased or De-Scoped: ePerformance, Succession Planning, Inventory, Enterprise Learning Management, Customer Relationship Management, Supplier Contract Management, Strategic Sourcing, eCompensation

ctcLink SCOPE

CTCLINK QUALITY GATES & MILESTONESDEPLOY

Lessons Learned

TRANSITION

End-User Training

User Acceptance Testing

Production Go/No Decision

Cutover Mitigation Planning

Determine ExceptionSolutions

Update BP Flows

Update CEMLIs

Update Configuration

Functional Testing

Prepare QAEnvironment

Prepare ParallelEnvironment

CONSTRUCT

Parallel Testing

System Integration Testing

Convert andValidate Data

Production Cutover Planning

Production Cutover

Security Matrix Mapping

Production Environment Prep

STRUCTUREGlobal Design

Adoption (GDA)

Business Process Fit/Gap (BPFG)

Update BP Flows

Local Configuration

UAT Test Definition

UAT Materials Build

Identify Exceptions

Design Extensions

Prepare or UpdateTest Scripts

Training Materials Analysis/Build

Map Supplemental Systems Data

Go/No Go Decision

Milestone Sign-Off

GO LIVE

Finalize Local Configuration

Guides

Project Planning (Checklists & Templates)

Security Redesign (DG2 only)

Build PeopleSoft Environments

Chart of Accounts Redesign (DG2 only)

Performance Testing

Organizational Change

Management Assessments Begin

OCM Assessment, Activities & Deliverables for Colleges & SBCTC

• College Project Charter• Resource Plan & Budget• Plan Deliverables• Legacy BP Mapping• Initial Supplemental

Systems Analysis

Change Impact Analysis 25%

• GDA and BPFG Participation• Supplemental Systems Data

Mapping• Initial Config Guides Sign-Off• UAT Definition Sign-Off


• Design Requirements Sign-Off

• Security Matrix Mapping• Data Validation Sign-Off


• OCM Readiness Checklist• UAT Sign-Off• End-User Training• Policy/Procedures Updated• Cutover Plans, Legacy

Shutdown Procedures


• College Cutover Plan• Go/No Go Sign-Off• Milestone Sign-Off• Config Guides Sign-Off• College Lessons Learned

Rev. 2019-03-05

Legacy System Shutdown

Procedures in Place

GATE 1 GATE 2 GATE 3 GATE 4 GATE 5

INITIATION

Pre-User Acceptance Testing Training

Production Validation

GATE 1 PEER REVIEW

Start Change Impact Analysis & Change

Action Plan

4

PILOT REMEDIATION OVERVIEW & STATUS

Date

TotalOpen Items

Open Items With a Planto Complete (Appendix A)

Open Items Needing aReplacementSolution (Appendix A)

Open Items That Were Closed, but Reopened in Remediation Agreement (Appendix B)

• 2016, 2017, 2018 Financial Books

• Absence Management (DG2)

• DRS Redistribution (In Testing)

• Continuing Education

• Online Admissions

• Budget Planning

• Financial Aid Customizations

11/29/17 195 101 10 84

12/13/18 41 29 10 2

4/01/19 23 11 10 2

5*FirstLink (pilot) colleges are validating open and closed items/numbers

DEPLOYMENT GROUPS AND TIMELINE

6

Deployment Changes:•Bellevue: DG4 to DG5•Columbia Basin: DG4 to DG6•Shoreline: DG5 to DG6 requested

Overall Timeline (All Deployments)

Executive Summary

The project is tracking per schedule and under budget. Review and definition of scope for each deployment continues due to the rework of key solutions. Each Deployment Group (DG) is now engaged in the project at some level. • DG2 is in the Construct Phase and the ctcLink project team is

performing DG2 System Integration Testing (SIT) and conversions. Conversations are underway to set go-live dates.

• DG3 is in the Structure Phase, focused on Business Process Fit/Gap sessions (BPFG) through May.

• DG4 is in the Initiation Phase, with most colleges nearing the halfway mark on deliverables.

• DG5 colleges have begun Initiation Phase and are learning the public status reporting process. DG5’s first report is included in this status update.

• DG6 will soon begin initiation phase and reporting process.

The spring 2019 Project Managers Summit will be held at Wenatchee Valley College, with May 6-7 focused on overall Implementation Phase activities for all colleges and May 8 focused on the Initiation Phase for DG5 and DG6.

Contract negotiations are underway for a new Continuing Education solution. The Online Admissions Application (OAA) work group is actively pursuing an OAA replacement. The Budget Planning Tool work group is reviewing and finalizing business and technical requirements.

Project Status – April 1 to 12, 2019

7

Overall Project Status SummaryCategory Status Comments

Overall Y• Program is on track, per timeline, scope and budget• DG2 Training content development and UAT framework making

good progress• Security Mapping activities impacting UAT

Schedule Y• Monitoring scope and timing of Budgeting Tool, Continuing

Education, Online Admissions Application, Physical Assets and OBIA implementations

Scope Y• Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM) needs to be updated to

validate original RFP requirements have been implemented, tested, and end users trained on the processes and functionality

Budget G• Currently tracking under budget• New Technology Plan approved as well as Stage Gate #3 for

OFM/OCIO Technology Pool funding

Christy

Overall Status Summary per Deployment Group DG# Status Comments

DG2 Y • Significant progress with Training content and UAT Framework• Security Mapping activities impacting UAT

DG3 G • College resources have been engaged in BPFG Workshops• Conversion cycles have began

DG4 G • College teams working on Initiation Phase activities

DG5 G • Started tracking college Initiation and included in status reports

Budget Status – as of March 31, 2019 G

8

Budget Notes:• Currently under budget by nearly $2.4 million due to timing of decisions and

implementation of replacement solutions. All funds are allocated.• In December 2017, WACTC approved increasing the funds for ctcLink by an

additional 1 percent of operating fees for fiscal years 2020, 2021, 2022.

ctcLink Quality Assurance Scorecard - Moran Technology Consulting , NOVEMBER 2018

LEGEND GREEN YELLOW RED

Risk Description: Low risks may be encountered.NO immediate action needed

Moderate risks may be encountered.Serious deficiency and action item recommended.

High risks may be encountered.Needs to be escalated and can impact project effort or cost.

ctcLink Quality Assurance Scorecard Moran Technology Consulting Report: March 2019

Overall Status Y

9

STATUS PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION / NOTES

G SBCTC/Governance Governance framework continues to work as expected. Meetings are held according to schedule, with materials distributed beforehand, and decisions made at the appropriate level.

G Project Management Project Management Office (PMO) is fully staffed, working well together and continuing to address improvements in project management processes.

Y Phase Scope QA concerned about implementation schedules for replacement solutions. Impacts to scope and schedule for DG2 and DG3 will be more defined once solutions are selected.

Y Schedule Status DG2/DG3/DG4 schedules and resource constraints now directly impact all deployment groups. Schedule compression and key project resources are heavily allocated to tasks.

Y TrainingThe decisions and actions taken by PMO have enabled recovery of this key work stream. The external contractor supporting delivery of training materials has made good progress with the Finance and HCM pillars. PMO has decided to coincide just-in-time targeted training with UAT Sprints which achieves a number of positive benefits.

Y Testing This work stream is yellow, but is now trending green due to changes made by the PMO. The PMO has added another PS experienced key resource for this work stream. DG2 Testing workstream relies heavily on availability and expertise of functional project staff.

G Configurations / Data Conversion

Technical work for DG2 System Configurations and Data Conversion Cycle 4 is underway with good results reported.

G Organizational Change Management (OCM)

PMO/OCM is actively engaged with all colleges now involved with their Deployment Groups. QAconcerned that PMO focus remains on the DG2 schedule.

G Project StaffingProject staffing is adequate at this time and continues to make staffing adjustments as appropriate. QA and the PMO remain concerned that the overlap of DG2/DG3/DG4 may require additional project and contractor resources. Project leadership and staff morale is positive given schedule pressures.

Y Technical EnvironmentFuture PS updates/bundles and 3rd party software installation and support work is being managed by the IT Division outside of the project responsibility. Overall planning of these changes needs to be tightly integrated with the ctcLink DG2/DG3/DG4 schedules. This becomes more challenging with the overlap in implementation schedules.

10

TOP PROGRAM RISKS# Risk Description Mitigation Deployment Focused

1.College Project Manager/Executive Sponsor Engagement

• Hire a Project Manager• Identify Engaged and

Supportive Executive Sponsor

• Deployment Group 5• Deployment Group 6

2.

College Resource Availability• Other College and System wide

Initiatives• Daily Operations• Staff Retention (Retirement/Role

Changes)

• Create ctcLink resource plan• Backfill or add additional staff

as needed for your College

• All Deployment Groups

3.

College leadership understanding ofctcLink project methodology and resource participation requirements • Pre-implementation • Implementation• Post Implementation

• ctcLink Project Management Office to provide detailed resource plan to Colleges for implementation

• College Project Managers need to account for additional College tasks


4.

ctcLink Permanent Support Organization – A clear plan and understanding of the sizing, service capacity and service levels provided by SBCTC

• SB working on Service Level Agreements with colleges to structure the evolving ctcLink support plan

• Plan will need to include appropriate staffing levelsfor all deployments as well as post implementation.


Note: All material licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

CLOSING REMARKS & QUESTIONS

TAB 3

1

STUDY SESSION ITEM (RESOLUTION 19-05-17) May 2, 2019

Tab 3

2021-23 major capital project scoring criteria

Brief Description

The State Board will review the status of the current 2019-21 capital budget request and will be asked to

decide

• If there should be a selection for new major projects to be added to the 2021-23 biennial capital budget request.

• If there is to be a selection, to adopt selection criteria, identify colleges eligible to compete, set a minimum score, and establish the process for adding projects to the pipeline.

How does this item link to the State Board’s 2018-19 priorities? The built environment supports enrollment, equity, diversity and completions.

Background Information and Analysis The State Board must submit a single prioritized request for community and technical college capital needs to the Office of Financial Management and the legislature for funding consideration.

Capital projects with state appropriated funds that cost $5 million or more are to be individually requested and are called “major projects”. Major projects are typically funded in two biennia; first for design and then construction.

Smaller projects are called “minor projects.” Minor projects are expected to be completed in the biennium they are funded.

Funding appropriated for the community and technical colleges is usually a combination of state bonds and cash from the building fees paid by the community and technical college students. Building fees are affected by enrollment levels and the state has a constitutionally limited capacity for construction bonds based on the last six-years of general fund revenue. Our system competes with all of the other state and local government agencies as well as some private and non-profit corporations for the limited state bonds.

Update on 2019-21 Capital Budget Request

The Governor and legislature have proposed various funding levels of the State Board’s 2019-21 capital request. The legislature is scheduled to adopt a capital budget by the end of the current session on April 28th. At the time of this writing, the House and Senate are working to resolve the differences in their proposals.

The House has proposed fully funding the projects in the State Board request in priority order down through construction of the Medical Mile Health Science Center at Bates Technical College. The Senate proposal would

TAB 3

2

appropriate $78 million more for the request in priority order down through construction of the Fine and Applied Arts Replacement project at Spokane Falls Community College.

Both proposals provide all of the alternative financing authorities requested and needed. Additionally, both proposals include sufficient reappropriations for all of the current major projects. Both proposals also provide funding for a Career Preparation and Launch Grant program for the State Board to manage on behalf of the community and technical college system that was not in the request.

There is a side by side comparison of the request and proposals in attachment A. An updated comparison will be provided to the State Board if there is an adopted budget or new proposals before the meeting.

Potential need to add to the pipeline

Preservation Projects: As a building’s age and condition are prime factors in our current major project scoring methodology, they can be used as proxies to estimate the renovation and replacement needs of the system. Not including projects currently in the pipeline, there are over 421,000 square feet of buildings at 20 different colleges that would likely score high enough on condition and age to be added to the pipeline in 2021. Within that group, seven colleges have over 119,000 square feet that would get all available renovation points based on age and condition.

In terms of replacement projects, there are also over 225,000 square feet of buildings at 13 colleges that would likely score high enough to be added to the pipeline. One of those colleges has 27,000 square feet that would get all available replacement points based on age and condition.

These proxies for the complete set of proposed major project criteria indicate there is likely to be a large need for additional renovation and replacement projects.

New Buildings. Given the decline in enrollments, one might not expect a need for new building area. However, some colleges may need net new area to accommodate their current and projected enrollments.

Presently 18 colleges are below the system average square footage per Full Time Equivalent students (FTE) and four of those colleges are below the average from 2010, when system enrollment peaked. After accounting for the projects in the pipeline and the projected growth in enrollment, four colleges will have less square footage per FTE in 2028 than in 2010.

While square footage per FTE is a crude metric for utilization it does indicate some colleges may need additional area.

If new major projects are to be added, how should they be selected and prioritized?

Selection criteria are used to prioritize college requests for major projects relative to the system’s policy objectives. The criteria are reviewed and updated every two years in response to new objectives, experience and external interests.

The State Board’s capital budget request has historically been shaped by an overarching policy set by the State Board, with specific workforce and programmatic needs identified at the local level. New space must be justified through effective use of existing space and forecasted new enrollments. Over the last couple of years, State Board staff has worked with the State Board and system stakeholders to improve and refine the criteria used to select and prioritize projects.

The selection process for major capital projects is designed to balance several, often competing policy objectives. Criteria are selected to be relevant to each type of proposal and to differentiate the proposals

TAB 3

3

based on the relative value of each objective. Due to the diverse needs addressed by the proposals, not all policy objectives are applicable to every proposal.

At this time, staff recommends application of a slightly revised/updated version of the scoring criteria used for 2019-21. The most significant updates in the proposed 2021-23 criteria are consistent with The Washington Association of Community and Technical Colleges (WACTC) goal to improve educational outcomes of its diverse student bodies and the State Board goal to promote student opportunity and success. System stakeholders worked together to identify how the built environment could improve student outcomes and close achievement gaps.

The criteria proposed for 2021-23 includes criteria to encourage using space to close achievement gaps. There are three factors to this new criteria:

1) The number of students in the achievement gap 2) The size of the gap 3) The likelihood the proposed solution will reduce the gap

The criteria allows for multiple gaps and multiple solutions in each proposal.

The proposed criteria also have increased potential points for projects with faculty offices, if they are configured to improve opportunities for student/faculty interaction. Locating faculty offices adjacent to informal learning spaces will earn more points than traditional office configurations.

Attachment B is the 2021-23 Project Development Guidelines recommended by WACTC. It is designed to provide equal opportunity to replacement, renovation and new building projects including infrastructure and matching funds through awarding points in the following areas:

• Minimum and overarching points applicable to all proposals. This includes effective use of existing facilities and consistency with state requirements and college planning.

• Matching fund points when a project includes non-state resources. • Infrastructure points for projects that include qualified site costs. • Renovation points for project reusing existing space. • Replacement points for projects that include demolition of existing space. • New area points for use when a project increases the building area of a campus.

A proposal can include any combination of these elements and all proposals have a potential for 100 relevant and equally hard to get points regardless of what elements are included. Appendices provide additional information for colleges when developing their proposals and for the project scorers.

Next Steps. On April 25, 2019, WACTC is scheduled to hold an academy and vote to recommend whether the State Board should hold a new major project selection for the 2021-23 capital budget request. And, if there is a selection recommended, what the criteria should be and who should be eligible to compete. During this academy WACTC will be briefed on several considerations, including:

• Current practices for budget development and management of the project pipeline • The age and condition of existing facilities • Recent and potential funding levels • Which colleges currently have major projects in the pipeline

The result of this discussion and recommendations will be shared with the State Board during its May meeting.

TAB 3

4

The current pipeline is in attachment C. Any recommendation from WACTC will be provided prior to the State Board meeting.

Once the questions about a major project selection are answered, there will be east-side and west-side workshops for colleges and their consultants on how to prepare requests for the 2021-23 capital budget. If there is going to be a major project selection proposals will be due in December 2019. Minor project proposals will be due in March 2020.

Potential questions

• Should there be a selection of new major projects for the 2021-23 capital budget request?

• If there is to be a selection ~

o Are the proposed 2021-23 major project scoring criteria consistent with the State Board’s policy objectives and goals?

o Should the competition for 2019-21 new major projects be open to all colleges?

o What minimum score should a proposal get to be added to the pipeline?

o Should new projects be added to the pipeline in rank order, below the existing projects in the pipeline?

Recommendation/preferred result Staff recommends approval of Resolution 19-05-17 adopting selection criteria, identifying colleges eligible to compete, setting a minimum score and establishing a process for adding projects to the pipeline of projects for the State Board’s 2021-23 biennial capital budget request.


Prepared by: Wayne Doty, capital budget director

(360) 704-4382, [email protected]

TAB 3 Attachment A

5

Prio

rity

Colle

ge

Phas

ePr

ojec

tAm

ount

Cum

ulat

ive

Amou

ntCu

mul

ativ

eAm

ount

Cum

ulat

ive

Amou

ntCu

mul

ativ

e1

Stat

ewid

eFu

nd S

wap

Prev

entiv

e Fa

cilit

y M

aint

enan

ce a

nd B

uild

ing

Syst

em R

epa

$22,

800,

000

$22,

800,

000

$22,

800,

000

$22,

800,

000

$22,

800,

000

$22,

800,

000

$22,

800,

000

$22,

800,

000

2St

atew

ide

Com

plet

eM

inor

Wor

ks -

Pres

erva

tion

$23,

739,

000

$46,

539,

000

$23,

739,

000

$46,

539,

000

$23,

739,

000

$46,

539,

000

$23,

739,

000

$46,

539,

000

3St

atew

ide

Com

plet

eM

inor

Rep

airs

- Ro

of$1

5,25

2,00

0$6

1,79

1,00

0$1

5,25

2,00

0$6

1,79

1,00

0$1

5,25

2,00

0$6

1,79

1,00

0$1

5,25

2,00

0$6

1,79

1,00

04

Stat

ewid

eCo

mpl

ete

Min

or R

epai

rs -

Faci

lity

$38,

527,

000

$100

,318

,000

$38,

527,

000

$100

,318

,000

$38,

527,

000

$100

,318

,000

$38,

527,

000

$100

,318

,000

5St

atew

ide

Com

plet

eM

inor

Rep

airs

- Si

te$3

,310

,000

$103

,628

,000

$3,3

10,0

00$1

03,6

28,0

00$3

,310

,000

$103

,628

,000

$3,3

10,0

00$1

03,6

28,0

006

Stat

ewid

eCo

mpl

ete

Min

or W

orks

- Pr

ogra

m$3

9,84

1,00

0$1

43,4

69,0

00$3

9,84

1,00

0$1

43,4

69,0

00$3

9,84

1,00

0$1

43,4

69,0

00$3

9,84

1,00

0$1

43,4

69,0

007

Wen

atch

ee

Cons

truc

tion

Wel

ls H

all R

epla

cem

ent

$29,

531,

000

$173

,000

,000

$29,

531,

000

$173

,000

,000

$29,

531,

000

$173

,000

,000

$29,

531,

000

$173

,000

,000

8O

lym

pic

Cons

truc

tion

Shop

Bui

ldin

g Re

nova

tion

$7,6

52,0

00$1

80,6

52,0

00$7

,652

,000

$180

,652

,000

$7,6

52,0

00$1

80,6

52,0

00$7

,652

,000

$180

,652

,000

9Pi

erce

Puy

allu

p De

sign

STEM

bui

ldin

g $3

,369

,000

$184

,021

,000

$3,3

69,0

00$1

84,0

21,0

00$3

,369

,000

$184

,021

,000

$3,3

69,0

00$1

84,0

21,0

0010

Pier

ce F

ort S

teila

coom

Cons

truc

tion

Casc

ade

Build

ing

Reno

vatio

n - P

hase

3$3

1,59

2,00

0$2

15,6

13,0

00$3

1,59

2,00

0$2

15,6

13,0

00$3

1,59

2,00

0$2

15,6

13,0

00$3

1,59

2,00

0$2

15,6

13,0

0011

Belle

vue

Desi

gnCe

nter

for T

rans

disc

iplin

ary

Lear

ning

and

Inno

vatio

n $2

,839

,000

$218

,452

,000

$2,8

39,0

00$2

18,4

52,0

00$2

,839

,000

$218

,452

,000

$2,8

39,0

00$2

18,4

52,0

0012

Sout

h Se

attle

Cons

truc

tion

Auto

mot

ive

Tech

nolo

gy$2

3,37

6,00

0$2

41,8

28,0

00$2

3,37

6,00

0$2

41,8

28,0

00$2

3,37

6,00

0$2

41,8

28,0

00$2

3,37

6,00

0$2

41,8

28,0

0013

Lake

Was

hing

ton

Desi

gnCe

nter

for D

esig

n $3

,160

,000

$244

,988

,000

$3,1

60,0

00$2

44,9

88,0

00$3

,160

,000

$244

,988

,000

$3,1

60,0

00$2

44,9

88,0

0014

Bate

sCo

nstr

uctio

nM

edic

al M

ile H

ealth

Sci

ence

Cen

ter

$40,

828,

000

$285

,816

,000

$40,

828,

000

$285

,816

,000

$40,

828,

000

$285

,816

,000

$40,

828,

000

$285

,816

,000

15Ba

tes

Desi

gnFi

re S

ervi

ce T

rain

ing

Cent

er

$2,8

02,0

00$2

88,6

18,0

00$2

,802

,000

$288

,618

,000

$285

,816

,000

$2,8

02,0

00$2

88,6

18,0

0016

Oly

mpi

cDe

sign

Inno

vatio

n &

Tec

hnol

ogy

Lear

ning

Cen

ter

$2,5

52,0

00$2

91,1

70,0

00$2

,552

,000

$291

,170

,000

$285

,816

,000

$2,5

52,0

00$2

91,1

70,0

0017

Shor

elin

eCo

nstr

uctio

nAl

lied

Heal

th, S

cien

ce &

Man

ufac

turin

g$3

6,64

2,00

0$3

27,8

12,0

00$3

6,64

2,00

0$3

27,8

12,0

00$2

85,8

16,0

00$3

6,64

2,00

0$3

27,8

12,0

0018

Ever

ett

Desi

gnBa

ker H

all R

epla

cem

ent

$2,8

50,0

00$3

30,6

62,0

00$3

27,8

12,0

00$2

85,8

16,0

00$2

,850

,000

$330

,662

,000

19Sp

okan

e Fa

llsCo

nstr

uctio

nFi

ne a

nd A

pplie

d Ar

ts R

epla

cem

ent

$35,

663,

000

$366

,325

,000

$327

,812

,000

$285

,816

,000

$35,

663,

000

$366

,325

,000

20Ta

com

a De

sign

Cent

er fo

r Inn

ovat

ive

Lear

ning

and

Eng

agem

ent

$2,8

39,0

00$3

69,1

64,0

00$3

27,8

12,0

00$2

85,8

16,0

00$3

66,3

25,0

0021

Wen

atch

ee

Desi

gnCe

nter

for T

echn

ical

Edu

catio

n an

d In

nova

tion

$3,0

93,0

00$3

72,2

57,0

00$3

27,8

12,0

00$2

85,8

16,0

00$3

66,3

25,0

0022

Clar

kCo

nstr

uctio

nN

orth

Cla

rk C

ount

y Sa

telli

te$4

9,76

6,00

0$4

22,0

23,0

00$3

27,8

12,0

00$2

85,8

16,0

00$3

66,3

25,0

0023

Shor

elin

eDe

sign

STE(

A)M

Edu

catio

n Ce

nter

$2

,837

,000

$424

,860

,000

$327

,812

,000

$285

,816

,000

$366

,325

,000

24Ev

eret

tCo

nstr

uctio

nLe

arni

ng R

esou

rce

Cent

er$4

5,36

5,00

0$4

70,2

25,0

00$3

27,8

12,0

00$2

85,8

16,0

00$3

66,3

25,0

0025

Low

er C

olum

bia

Desi

gnCe

nter

for V

ocat

iona

l and

Tra

nsiti

onal

Stu

dies

$2

,995

,000

$473

,220

,000

$327

,812

,000

$285

,816

,000

$366

,325

,000

26Sp

okan

e De

sign

Appr

entic

eshi

p Ce

nter

$3

,153

,000

$476

,373

,000

$327

,812

,000

$285

,816

,000

$366

,325

,000

27Gr

ays H

arbo

rCo

nstr

uctio

nSt

uden

t Ser

vice

s and

Inst

ruct

iona

l Bui

ldin

g$4

1,46

0,00

0$5

17,8

33,0

00$3

27,8

12,0

00$2

85,8

16,0

00$3

66,3

25,0

0028

Colu

mbi

a Ba

sin

Desi

gnPe

rfor

min

g Ar

ts B

uild

ing

Repl

acem

ent

$2,2

99,0

00$5

20,1

32,0

00$3

27,8

12,0

00$2

85,8

16,0

00$3

66,3

25,0

0029

Nor

th S

eatt

leCo

nstr

uctio

nLi

brar

y Bu

ildin

g Re

nova

tion

$28,

579,

000

$548

,711

,000

$327

,812

,000

$285

,816

,000

$366

,325

,000

30W

hatc

om

Desi

gnTe

chno

logy

and

Eng

inee

ring

Cent

er

$2,8

68,0

00$5

51,5

79,0

00$3

27,8

12,0

00$2

85,8

16,0

00$3

66,3

25,0

0031

Wal

la W

alla

Cons

truc

tion

Scie

nce

and

Tech

nolo

gy B

uild

ing

Repl

acem

ent

$8,7

96,0

00$5

60,3

75,0

00$3

27,8

12,0

00$2

85,8

16,0

00$3

66,3

25,0

0032

Casc

adia

Cons

truc

tion

Cent

er fo

r Sci

ence

and

Tec

hnol

ogy

$37,

985,

000

$598

,360

,000

$327

,812

,000

$285

,816

,000

$366

,325

,000

33Ca

scad

iaDe

sign

CC5

Gate

way

bui

ldin

g $2

,993

,000

$601

,353

,000

$327

,812

,000

$285

,816

,000

$366

,325

,000

34Ed

mon

ds

Desi

gnTr

iton

Lear

ning

Com

mon

s $3

,439

,000

$604

,792

,000

$327

,812

,000

$285

,816

,000

$366

,325

,000

35Re

nton

De

sign

Heal

th S

cien

ces C

ente

r $3

,821

,000

$608

,613

,000

$327

,812

,000

$285

,816

,000

$366

,325

,000

36Be

lling

ham

De

sign

Engi

neer

ing

Tech

nolo

gy C

ente

r - B

ldg

J Rep

lace

men

t $1

,295

,000

$609

,908

,000

$327

,812

,000

$285

,816

,000

$366

,325

,000

37Ce

ntra

lia

Desi

gnTe

ache

r Edu

catio

n an

d Fa

mily

Dev

elop

men

t Cen

ter

$1,8

97,0

00$6

11,8

05,0

00$3

27,8

12,0

00$2

85,8

16,0

00$3

66,3

25,0

0038

Skag

it De

sign

Libr

ary/

Culin

ary

Arts

Bui

ldin

g $2

,136

,000

$613

,941

,000

$327

,812

,000

$285

,816

,000

$366

,325

,000

39Hi

ghlin

e De

sign

Wel

com

e Ce

nter

for S

tude

nt S

ucce

ss

$2,9

57,0

00$6

16,8

98,0

00$3

27,8

12,0

00$2

85,8

16,0

00$3

66,3

25,0

0040

Clar

kDe

sign

Hann

a/Fo

ster

/Haw

kins

Com

plex

Rep

lace

men

t $2

,324

,000

$619

,222

,000

$327

,812

,000

$285

,816

,000

$366

,325

,000

41Pe

nins

ula

Desi

gnAd

vanc

ed T

echn

olog

y Ce

nter

$2

,103

,000

$621

,325

,000

$327

,812

,000

$285

,816

,000

$366

,325

,000

42So

uth

Seat

tleDe

sign

Rain

ier H

all R

enov

atio

n $3

,309

,000

$624

,634

,000

$327

,812

,000

$285

,816

,000

$366

,325

,000

43Se

attle

Cen

tral

De

sign

Broa

dway

Ach

ieve

men

t Cen

ter

$2,7

23,0

00$6

27,3

57,0

00$3

27,8

12,0

00$3

27,8

12,0

00$3

27,8

12,0

00Sy

stem

Care

er P

rep

& La

unch

Equ

ipm

ent G

rant

$0$6

27,3

57,0

00$1

0,50

0,00

0$3

38,3

12,0

00$7

,500

,000

$293

,316

,000

$5,0

00,0

00$3

71,3

25,0

00$6

27,3

57,0

00$3

38,3

12,0

00$2

93,3

16,0

00$3

71,3

25,0

00

Com

paris

on o

f 201

9-21

SBC

TC C

apita

l Req

uest

to G

over

nor a

nd L

egisl

ativ

e Pr

opos

als

New

App

ropr

iatio

nsSe

nate

Psl 4

Apr1

9Ho

useP

sl 3A

pr19

GovP

sl Bk

2A 1

3Dec

18

TAB 3

6

Colle

ge

Proj

ect

Auth

ority

Auth

ority

Auth

ority

Colu

mbi

a Ba

sin

Stud

ent R

ecre

atio

n Ce

nter

Ever

ett

Prop

erty

Acq

uisi

tions

Gray

s Har

bor

Stud

ent S

ervi

ces a

nd In

stru

ctio

nal B

uild

ing

Pier

ce P

uyal

lup

Park

ing

Expa

nsio

nW

alla

Wal

laCl

arks

ton

Stud

ent A

ctiv

ity C

ente

rW

alla

Wal

laSt

uden

t Rec

reat

ion

Cent

erW

enat

chee

Wel

ls H

all C

onfe

renc

e Ce

nter

Yaki

ma

Wes

t Cam

pus E

xpan

sion

(re-

auth

oriz

e)

Not

es:

A Boo

k 2

depe

nds o

n ne

w re

venu

e. T

he b

ook

1 pr

opos

al fu

nds d

own

thro

ugh

prio

rity

14 a

nd re

duce

s the

Car

eer P

rep

& La

unch

Equ

ipm

ent G

rant

to $

7.5

mill

ion.

B The

fina

ncin

g au

thor

ity fo

r Eve

rett

was

add

ed to

the

requ

est b

y SB

CTC

reso

lutio

n 18

-12-

49 o

n De

cem

ber 6

, 201

8.C T

his f

inan

cing

is fo

r the

cons

truc

tion-

phas

e of

maj

or p

roje

ct p

riorit

y 27

. Sta

te p

ortio

n of

cons

truc

tion-

phas

e w

as n

ot fu

nded

so a

utho

rity

is n

ot n

eede

d.

Com

paris

on o

f 201

9-21

SBC

TC C

apita

l Req

uest

to G

over

nor a

nd L

egisl

ativ

e Pr

opos

als

$6,5

00,0

00

Alt

erna

tive

Fin

anci

ng A

utho

riti

esHo

useP

sl 3A

pr19

$10,

000,

000

$4,5

00,0

00

C

$2,8

31,0

00$1

,500

,000

$3,2

00,0

00$2

,831

,000

GovP

sl Bk

2A 1

3Dec

18

Auth

ority $2

7,00

0,00

0$2

7,00

0,00

0

$22,

700,

000

$27,

000,

000

$10,

000,

000

C

$2,8

31,0

00$1

,500

,000

$6,5

00,0

00$4

,500

,000

$22,

700,

000

$27,

000,

000

$10,

000,

000

C

$2,8

31,0

00$1

,500

,000

B

$22,

700,

000

$1,5

00,0

00$6

,500

,000

$4,5

00,0

00$2

2,70

0,00

0

$6,5

00,0

00$4

,500

,000

State Board for Community and Technical Colleges 2021-23 Project Development Guidelines

Project Request Report

When developing the Project Request Report (PRR), the following items should be addressed: 1. Executive Summary

1.1. Problem statement/type of project request 1.2. Proposed solution 1.3. Programs addressed by project 1.4. Probable cost summary and comparison to benchmark (reasonableness of cost) 1.5. Project schedule 1.6. Funding (state funds, local funds, COPs)

2. Problem Statement, Opportunity, or Program Requirement 2.1. Short description of the project and its benefits 2.2. How this project relates to:

2.2.1. Facilities master plan 2.2.2. Strategic plan 2.2.3. Institutional goals

2.3. How this project relates to the SBCTC system direction goals for economic demand, student success, and innovation

2.4. Table showing a summary of program and related space 2.5. Increased type 1 and type 2 full time equivalent students 1 accommodated by this project 2.6. Table of affected existing buildings with their unique facility identifiers, dates built and

square footages

3. Analysis of Alternatives 3.1. Define the capital problem in terms of building age, condition, functionality, health,

safety, code issues, etc. 3.2. Describe the obvious and critical needs that are driving the project. For example:

3.2.1. New space for enrollment demand 3.2.2. Renovation/replacement

3.2.2.1. Program mix changes 3.2.2.2. Simplifying space relationships

3.2.3. Accreditation needs 3.3. Alternatives considered

3.3.1. Programmatic and facility related 3.3.2. Consequences of doing nothing 3.3.3. Cost estimate for preferred alternative

4. Project Planning of Preferred Alternative

4.1. History of building and original funding source, if applicable 4.2. Useful life of proposed facility 4.3. Discussion of sustainability – LEED Silver Standard required 4.4. How this project will impact deferred maintenance and repair backlog

1 To account for online students in space planning we have defined two types of FTES: Type 1: Day On Campus w/o Online Category 3N – Used for sizing classrooms and labs. Type 2: Day On Campus plus online regardless of time of day – Used for everything else.

8

4.5. Acquisition needs 4.6. Parking expansion directly related to the project 4.7. Permit issues, variances required 4.8. Utility and other infrastructure needs 4.9. Storm water and other environmental issues 4.10. Roads and traffic signals 4.11. Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and tribal reviews 4.12. Provide fall 2016 utilization of classrooms, laboratories and all instructional areas on

campus. See appendix C for guidelines on determining existing utilization. 4.13. New programs; changing mix of programs 4.14. New space and what happens to vacated space — is it renovated or demolished? 4.15. Comparison of existing and new spaces to the capital analysis model in appendix F. 4.16. Need and availability of surge space 4.17. Flexibility and adaptability of proposed space

5. Project Budget Analysis of Preferred Alternative 5.1. Prediction of overall project cost 5.2. Comparisons of $/FTE to similar Washington community and technical college projects 5.3. Anticipated annual impact on the college’s operating and maintenance budget in both

Program 090 FTES and maintenance and operation cost, including but not limited to: 5.3.1. Janitorial costs 5.3.2. Utility costs 5.3.3. Technology — infrastructure and technician support; voice, data and video

communication 5.3.4. Capital maintenance, general repair and furniture/equipment replacement 5.3.5. Roads, walks, landscaping and grounds maintenance 5.3.6. Security 5.3.7. Administration

6. Required Attachments

6.3. Cost estimate on OFM C100 form in Excel format 6.4. Completed project parameters form 6.5. Minimum and overarching criteria form with college responses 6.6. DAHP and tribal review of proposed project as required under Executive Order 05-05 6.7. Completed LEED checklist 6.8. Estimating documents supporting special needs, mitigation, or extenuating

circumstances associated with the project 6.9. Site map showing project location 6.10. Preliminary drawings and sketches

7. Appendices (required where cited in proposal) 7.3. Any site-specific materials important to the project — structural engineering report,

geotechnical report, traffic studies, etc. 7.4. Selected material from facility condition survey 7.5. Selected material from the master plan and strategic plan that ties directly to the scoring

criteria 7.6. Other relevant material where referenced in proposal may be included as appendices

9

PRR Format and Expectations

Narrative should follow headings from this set of guidelines. Length should not exceed 20 pages, single-spaced (excluding project cost, diagrams and

sketches, appendices, cover sheet, title page and table of contents); type font should be Times New Roman 12 point and margins should be one inch.

Colleges should provide hyper-links between claims and data in the proposal. Colleges should submit proposals in editable electronic formats (PDF, Excel, Word, etc.)

to SBCTC capital budget director for distribution to the evaluation team. The project narrative and cost estimate should not be scanned (raster) documents nor should they have a security feature that makes it difficult to copy information from them.

SBCTC may forward copies of the project request reports to OFM, WSAC and legislative staff upon completion of the selection process.

10

Project Parameters

Type of Space Square Footage Percent Renovation of existing (S1) New space (S2) Exterior circulation of existing. See appendix H. (S6)

Demolished area (S3)

Total Affected Area (S4 = S1 + S2) Net Area Change = New – Demo – Circulation S5 = (S2 – S3 – S6) Costs Dollars Percent Acquisition Consultant services Construction contracts (w/o eligible infrastructure) Ca Eligible infrastructure contracts (from C100) Cb Equipment Artwork Other Costs Project management

Total Project Cost (C1) Funding Dollars Percent State appropriation Financed — backed by state appropriation Local funds — cash (see list of qualifying funds) Ma Financed — backed by Local Funds Mb

Total Project Funding (F1) Matching (Ma + Mb) (Ma + Mb) / F1 Variance = Cost – Funding (C1 – F1) Project Weighting Equivalent Area Percent Matching (M4 * S4) M4 = 2 * (Ma+Mb)/F1

Infrastructure (I4 * S4) I4 = min(Cb/(Ca+Cb),(1-M4))

Renovation (R4 * S4) R4 = (S1 * (1-M4-I4))/ (S1+S5+min(S2,S3))

Replacement (P4 * S4) P4 = (min(S2,S3) * (1-M4-I4))/(S1+S5+min(S2,S3))

New (N4 * S4) N4 = ((S5)*(1-M4-I4))/ (S1+S5+min(S2,S3))

Total S4 M4+R4+P4+N4

11

2019-21 Category Weighting The following values represent a system without any differential category weighting.

Overarching weighting (O2) 1.00

Matching fund weighting (M2) 1.00 Infrastructure weighting (I2) 1.00 Renovation weighting (R2) 1.00

Replacement weighting (P2) 1.00 New area weighting (N2) 1.00

12

2021-23 Minimum and Overarching Criteria Points

Evaluation Criteria Scoring Standard College response Affected buildings are at a single site. Yes / No College response Project does not include improvements to

temporary or portable facilities. Yes / No

College response Project is not a gymnasium or recreational facility.

Yes / No

College response Project is not an exclusive enterprise function such as a bookstore, dormitory or contract food service.

Yes / No

College response Project is not dependent on another project in the current request.

Yes / No

College response Project meets LEED silver standard requirements.

Yes / No

College response College has a greenhouse gas emission reduction plan.

Yes / No

College response The facility is state-owned or a condominium interest is held (state capital funds cannot be spent on leased space).

Yes / No

College response Project will take more than one biennium. And, project costs at least $5,000,000 and does not exceed 70,000 gsf without WACTC Capital Budget Committee approval.

Yes / No

College response If project includes renovation or replacement, then affected buildings have been owned by the college for 20 years at the time of the request.

Yes / No

College response If project includes renovation, then the project extends the useful life of the affected building at least 20 years.

Yes / No

College response If project includes renovation, then the cost does not exceed 80% of the current replacement cost.

Yes / No

Effective use of existing facilities See appendix C for guidelines on determining existing utilization.

Fall 2016 space utilization relative to standards and other proposals. Standards are: classroom seats used 22 hours per week. laboratory seats used 16 hours per week.

Up to nine points

Ability to enhance state and institution’s achievement of goals

Add up points from each category: (Max 14) Directly tied to facilities master plan Directly tied to objectives in strategic plan Include clear and succinct description of the relationship between the project and its impact on partnerships with K-12, four years, business, etc. This may be supported by letters from partners describing how the project will benefit the partnership.

4 4 4

Project includes at least seven of the best practices identified in appendix A to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

2

Overarching subtotal (O1) Overarching weighting (O2)

Overarching weighted subtotal (O3 = O1 x O2) Overarching portion of project (O4)

Overarching points (O5 = O3 x O4)

13

2021-23 Matching Fund Points (use when project includes non-state resources)

Evaluation Criteria Scoring Standard Project clearly benefits students

Add up points from each category: (max 4) Increases program access Increases efficiency Improves service to students Simplifies space relationships

3 3 3 3

Demonstrated need Serves a critical need Addresses the college’s opportunity gaps See appendix J for guidance. Enhances program delivery Improves space Not addressed

10 10 10 3 0

Reasonableness of cost See appendix B for determining expected costs.

Total project cost is less than or equal to the expected cost per square foot for the facility type, escalated to the construction mid-point.

7

Project cost is between 100% and 137% of expected cost.

3

Project cost is more than 137% of expected cost.

0

Project completion timeline

All matching funds available at time proposal is submitted. All matching funds will be raised before construction is completed. Matching funds will continue to be raised after construction is completed.

10 3 0

Project schedule

Project and funding milestones are clearly identified. Project schedule w/o a funding schedule. Schedule is uncertain or not evident.

10 3 0

Project feasibility

Assessment of the likelihood of success and good local participation

Up to 18 points

Matching Fund Subtotal (M1) Matching Fund Weighting (M2)

Matching Fund Weighted Subtotal (M3 = M1 x M2) Matching Fund Portion of Project (M4)

Matching Fund Points (M5 = M3 x M4)

Qualifying Non-State Resources Non-Qualifying Resources Foundation Resources S & A Balances or Fees Cash Donations Enterprise Funds Private Grants Parking Fees Federal Funds awarded for COP Funds Capital Construction

New

14

2021-23 Infrastructure Points (use when project includes qualified site costs)

Evaluation Criteria Scoring Standard Program need Serves new building area in this proposal or existing college facilities. Existing college need is measured as gross square footage of existing buildings served by infrastructure relative to entire college gross square footage.

Infrastructure serves new building area constructed in this proposal or, serves 100% of the existing college.

20

Serves 80% or more, and less than 100% of the existing college. 15

Serves between 40% and 80% of college of the existing college. 10

Serves 40% or less of the existing college. 0

Reasonableness of cost Provide a separate C100 for the Infrastructure work. Provide detailed log from previous year(s) with costs for maintenance and repair if replacing existing infrastructure.

Infrastructure costs less than 5% of the total project or, infrastructure cost divided by previous average annual costs is twenty, or less.

30

Infrastructure costs 5%, or more, and less than 10% of the total project or, infrastructure cost divided by previous average annual costs is greater than twenty and less than fifty.

15

Infrastructure costs 10%, or more, and less than 15% of the total project or, infrastructure cost divided by previous average annual costs is fifty, or more, and less than one hundred.

5

Infrastructure costs 15% or more of the total project or, infrastructure cost divided by previous average annual costs is one hundred, or more.

0

Risk mitigation Age of infrastructure being replaced at the date of the proposal relative to average life of type of infrastructure. See appendix E for average lives.

Infrastructure serves new area building constructed in this proposal or, infrastructure age is at least 200% of the average life.

12

Infrastructure is 100% to 200% of average life.

6

Infrastructure is less than 100% of average life.

0

Suitability for long term financing Average life of new or replaced infrastructure. Provide engineer’s opinion of average life if not replacing entire infrastructure with new. See appendix E for calculating average lives.

Average life of new infrastructure is more than 30 years.

15

Average life of new infrastructure is more than 25 years and less than 30 years.

10

Average life or new infrastructure is 20 through 25 years.

5

Average life of new infrastructure is less than 20 years.

0

Infrastructure Subtotal (I1) Infrastructure Weighting (I2)

Infrastructure Weighted Subtotal (I3 = I1 x I2) Infrastructure Portion of Project (I4) Infrastructure Points (I5 = I3 x I4)

15

Qualifying Infrastructure Electrical, potable water, non-potable water, steam, sewer, natural gas, storm water, fire protection, emergency access roads, and communication work more than five feet outside of a building’s foundation, unless it is connecting to a building with no other work in the project in which case the infrastructure may terminate inside the building.

Non-qualifying Infrastructure Landscaping that is not disturbed by qualifying infrastructure work, roads (except emergency access), driveways, parking lots and walkways.

16

2021-23 Renovation Points (use when project includes renovated space)

Evaluation Criteria Scoring Standards Age of the building or portion of building being renovated

Over 50 41 – 50 36 – 40 31 – 35 26 – 30 20 – 25 < Less than 20 years

16 13 11 8 5 2 0

Condition of the building or portion of building being renovated

Greater than 600 526 - 600 476 - 525 451 - 475 351 - 450 276 - 350 0 - 275

2 11 16 11 2 0 -5

Reasonableness of cost of the renovated portion of the building See appendix B for determining expected costs.


10


8


2

Project cost is more than 137% of expected cost. 0 Program related improvements in the renovated portion of the project See appendix K for guidance on FOiwILS

(Assignable Square Feet) Classroom, labs Student Services Library Childcare and FOiwILS Faculty offices Administrative Maintenance/Central Stores/Student Center

% of total

x score 13 13 13 11 8 5 2

Total

Significant health, safety and code issues addressed in the renovation

Add up points from each category (Max 8) Seismic issues (documentation by a Structural Engineer is required) Life safety Energy code issues

3 3 2

Extension to renovated portion of building’s life

31 + years 26 – 30 years 20 – 25 years

8 5 2

Fitness for Use of the renovated portion of the project

To what extent does the proposed renovation address the existing deficiencies and project objectives?

2

Closing opportunity gaps See appendix J for guidance.

To what extent does the proposed renovation address the college’s opportunity gaps?

5

Renovation Subtotal (R1) Renovation Weighting (R2)

Renovation Weighted Subtotal (R3 = R1 x R2) Renovation Portion of Project (R4)

Renovation Points (R5 = R3 x R4)

New

New

2021-23 Replacement Points (use when project includes demolition)

Evaluation Criteria Scoring Standard Age of the building or portion of building being replaced

Over 50 41 – 50 36 – 40 31 – 35 26 – 30 20 – 25 < Less than 20 years

14 12 9 7 5 2 0

Condition of building or portion of building being replaced

681 – 730 601 – 680 526 – 600 476 – 525 451 – 475 351 – 450 276 – 350 0 – 275

14 12 9 7 5 2 0 -5

Reasonableness of cost of the replacement portion of the project See appendix B for determining expected costs.


16


12


5

Project cost is more than 137% of expected cost. 0 Program related improvements in the replacement portion of the project See appendix K for guidance on FOiwILS

(Assignable Square Feet) Classroom, labs Student Services Library Childcare and FOiwILS Faculty offices Administrative Maintenance/Central Stores/Student Center

Percentage of total

x score 12 12 12 9 7 5 2

Total

Significant health, safety and code issues addressed by the replacement portion of the project

Add up points from each category (Max14) Seismic issues (documentation required) Life safety Energy code issues

6 5 3

Fitness for Use of the replacement portion of the project

To what extent does the proposed replacement address the existing deficiencies and project objectives?

2

Closing opportunity gaps See appendix J for guidance.

To what extent does the proposed replacement address the college’s opportunity gaps?

5

Replacement Subtotal (P1) Replacement Weighting (P2)

Replacement Weighted Subtotal (P3 = P1 x P2) Replacement Portion of Project (P4)

Replacement Points (P5 = P3 x P4)

New

New

18

2021-23 New Area Points (use when project has a net increase in area)

Evaluation Criteria Scoring Standard Efficient use of space – future utilitzation See appendix D for guidelines on determining future utilization and appendix G for guidelines on enrollment projections

If either Lab utilization will be more than 17 or Class utilization will be more than 23.

18

If Lab utilization will be at least 15 but less than 17 and Class utilization was at least 21 but less than 23

24

If Lab utilization was at least 12 but less than 15 and Class utilization was at least 19 but less than 21

12

If either Lab utilization will be less than 12 or Class utilization will be less than 19.

0

Program related improvements in the new area portion of the project See appendix K for guidance on FOiwILS

(Assignable Square Feet) Percentage of total

x score Total

Classroom, labs 12 Student Services 12 Library 12 Childcare and FOiwILS 9 Faculty offices 7 Administrative 5 Maintenance/Central Stores/Student Center 2

Comprehensive project planning for new area

Add up points from each category:(Max 24) Space improves program delivery and student support To what extent does the proposed new area address the college’s opportunity gaps? See appendix J for guidance. Programs and student support space are identified by usage and square footage Location of project is identified by site Special initiatives beyond participation rates Reasonable cost estimate and building efficiency Expected building life — 50 years or greater

5 5 5 2 2 3 2

Reasonableness of cost of the new area — efficient utilization of funds for building being proposed See appendix B for determining expected costs.

Add up points from each category: (Max 17) Total project cost is less than or equal to the expected cost per square foot for the facility type, escalated to the construction mid-point.

17


12


5

Project cost is more than 137% of expected cost. 0 New Area Subtotal (N1)

New Area Weighting (N2) New Area Weighted Subtotal (N3 = N1 x N2)

New Area Portion of Project (N4) New Area Points (N5 = N3 x N4)

New

New

19

Appendix A – Best Practices to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

System / Best Practices Included in Project?

Mechanical Solar water heating Above code HVAC system efficiency Use natural gas instead of electricity for heating Geothermal heat pump Post occupancy commissioning Interconnectivity of room scheduling in 25Live and HVAC controls

Electrical Photovoltaic energy systems Time of day and occupancy programming of lighting Efficient lighting

Envelope Minimize building surface area for necessary floor area Roofing materials with high solar reflectance and reliability Green roofs to absorb heat and act as insulators for ceilings

Site Orient building for natural light and reduced heating and cooling loads Trees and vegetation planted to directly shade building Paving materials with high solar reflectance, enhanced water evaporation, or otherwise designed to remain cooler ore require less lighting than conventional pavements

Increase transportation choices — drive, walk, bike or public transit Total number of these best practices included in project:

20

Appendix B – Expected Cost Ranges

Update with 2019 OFM Higher Education Facility Study EXPECTED PROJECT COSTS IN 2008 DOLLARS The following data is from the Facilities Financing Study dated December 10, 2008, prepared by Berk & Associates, http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget/capital/higher_ed_capital_finance_study.pdf. This study was completed in response to Engrossed Substitute House Bill 3329, enacted by the 2008 Legislature. The CTC Libraries data are based on recently completed projects at Washington State’s community and technical colleges. Facility Type Number

of Data Points

Construction Costs / GSF Total Project Costs / GSF

Std Dev Best Fit Expected Cost Classrooms 19 $57 $297 $420 Communications buildings 5 $68 $267 $378 Science labs (teaching) 16 $66 $309 $437 Research facilities 12 $61 $440 $623 Administrative buildings 9 $36 $218 $309 Day care facilities 4 $24 $199 $283 CTC Libraries 4 $56 $255 $361

ADJUSTING EXPECTED COSTS TO CONSTRUCTION MID-POINT The following data is based on the December 2016 Global Insight forecast for state and local government spending and is to be used for adjusting the expected costs from July 1, 2008, to the mid-construction date for comparison to project estimate.

Mid-construction Date

Expected Cost Multiplier

Mid-construction Date

Expected Cost Multiplier

7/1/2008 1.000 5/16/2019 1.287 5/16/2016 1.184 8/15/2019 1.297 8/15/2016 1.187 11/15/2019 1.306 11/15/2016 1.195 2/15/2020 1.315 2/14/2017 1.204 5/16/2020 1.324 5/16/2017 1.214 8/15/2020 1.332 8/15/2017 1.224 11/15/2020 1.341 11/15/2017 1.233 2/14/2021 1.350 2/14/2018 1.242 5/16/2021 1.359 5/16/2018 1.251 8/15/2021 1.368 8/15/2018 1.260 11/15/2021 1.377 11/15/2018 1.269 2/14/2022 1.386 2/14/2019 1.278 5/16/2022 1.395

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget/capital/higher_ed_capital_finance_study.pdf

21

Update with 2019 OFM Higher Education Facility Study SAMPLE PROJECT FOR DEMONSTRATION OF EXPECTED COST RANGES

Construction Mid-point: 5/16/2020 Expected Cost Multiplier: 1.324 from appendix B Project GSF: 65,000 S1 + S3 from Project Parameters

Facility Type Expected Cost

/ GSF in 2008$ Expected Cost

/ GSF GSF by

Type Expected Cost Point

Thresholds Classrooms $420 $556 39,000 $ 21,684,000 Communications buildings $378 $500 - $ - Science labs (teaching) $437 $579 13,000 $ 7,527,000 Research facilities $623 $825 - $ - Administrative buildings $309 $409 13,000 $ 5,317,000 Day care facilities $283 $375 - $ - CTC Libraries $361 $478 - $ -

65,000 $ 34,528,000 100% $ 38,326,080 111% $ 47,303,360 137%

The Project Cost (C1) less the Infrastructure Cost is compared to the Expected Cost for determination of Reasonableness of Cost points. When submitting a proposal with Infrastructure, please provide a separate C100 for the Infrastructure work so the costs can be easily identified.

Expected Cost / GSF = Expected Cost / GSF in 2008$ * Expected Cost Multiplier GSF by Type = ASF by Type / Sum(All ASF) * GSF

22

Appendix C – Existing Utilization

Utilization is used to compare the level of use of instructional facilities at different locations. The methodology is based on the 1994 Higher Education Coordinating Board standards for classroom and laboratory facility utilization available here- http://www.wsac.wa.gov/sites/default/files/FacilitiesEvaluationandPlanningGuide.pdf. The contact hours are totaled for classrooms, laboratories and other facilities used for instruction in the first week of the preceding fall quarter and compared to the capacity of these spaces. The weekly utilization rate is equal to the contact hours divided by room capacity during a forty-five hour week. The college can identify which forty-five hours represent the peak use of their facilities for the calculation. The capacity is generally the number of student seats designed to be available in the space. If another standard is used it should be described in the analysis.

• For example, if there is a room used for classroom instruction with one instructor, the maximum student-to-faculty ratio is twenty-five by contract, or policy, and the room has twenty-eight student seats, then the capacity of the room is limited by the contract, or policy, to twenty-five students.

The capacity of non-traditional classrooms will be the maximum number of students that can be accommodated by the space at a given time. The capacity of these spaces may also be limited by contract, or policy. Here are some examples:

• If there is a space used for hands-on automotive repair instruction, two students can work on an automobile at a time, and the space can hold ten automobiles, then the capacity of this space would be twenty students.

• If there is a space used for instruction of computer controlled machining that is used by a

single student cohort that includes sixteen student computer workstations and six computer controlled machines for which two students can work on at a time, then the capacity of this space is limited by the number of machines to twelve students.

The analysis will include a note about why any physical workstations were not included in the analysis and how the college plans to use the space more efficiently in the future. Colleges can either calculate their facility utilization using the room scheduling software in ctcLink, called 25Live, or with a spreadsheet provided by the State Board. Currently, the standard utilization reports in 25Live do not offer as much flexibility as allowed by this methodology. This methodology was developed specifically for scoring of new major project proposals and may not be appropriate for other utilization reporting needs.

http://www.wsac.wa.gov/sites/default/files/FacilitiesEvaluationandPlanningGuide.pdf

23

Definitions: Workstation utilization in hours per week equals the number of contact hours divided by the room capacity. Utilization is reported for every individual classroom and lab space on a campus. Utilization is also reported in aggregate by room use code by campus. Contact hours are the sum of the classroom contact hours of state and running start enrollments for-credit courses during the 45 data capture hours of any consecutive five instructional days starting with the enrollment census date of the preceding fall or winter quarter. These are the hours students are expected to attend instructor led classes and labs as indicated on the class schedule. The 45 data capture hours are defined by the college to report their peak facility usage. Colleges may elect to use any combination of 45 data capture hours during the five days. If a class starts before, or ends after a capture hour, then the start and end times for the class are limited to the time included in the capture hours. For example, if the college chooses to use 8:00 AM to 8:30 AM Monday through Friday as part of their 45 data capture hours and a class with 10 students meets five times a week for 60 minutes starting at 7:30 AM, this class would contribute 25 student contact hours toward the calculation of utilization (10 student x 30 contact minutes ÷ 60 minutes/hour x 5 meetings). If a college elects to use blocks of contiguous hours each day for data capture, then they may include a 10 minute pad between classes to account for the time it takes to empty and fill a room. For example, if the college chooses to use 8:00AM to 5:00 PM Monday through Friday as their 45 data capture hours and a class with 10 students meets five times a week for 60 minutes starting at 7:30 AM, this class would contribute 33.33 student contact hours toward the calculation of utilization (10 student x 40 contact minutes ÷ 60 minutes/hour x 5 meetings). Room capacity is the capacity of the space for instruction as reported by the college. The room capacity should be based on the physical limitations of the facility and the method of instruction. References: Per FAE Facility Coding Manual, classrooms have 110, 120, and 130. Scheduled labs have 210 and 260 room use codes. State enrollments are defined in State Board policy 5.30.10 A contact hour is defined in State Board policy 5.40.10. Enrollment census dates are defined in State Board policy 5.50. A spreadsheet that calculates utilization consistent with the adopted methodology, and a spreadsheet with sample data are available here — http://www.sbctc.edu/colleges-staff/programs-services/capital-budget/capital-budget-development.aspx

Revised

http://sbctc.edu/college/finance/fae_facility_coding_manual_000.pdf

http://www.sbctc.edu/colleges-staff/programs-services/capital-budget/capital-budget-development.aspx


24

Contact Hours Workstations UtilizationClasses 20,344.70 787 25.87 Labs 8,485.20 415 20.47 Campus 28,829.90 1,201.00 24.00

Appendix D — Future Utilization

The utilization of campus classrooms and laboratories in the future is the projected number of contact hours divided by the future number of workstations. This can be estimated by adding the number of workstations in the proposed project to the existing number of workstations and the net new Type 1 enrollment to the existing Type 1 enrollment. Start with the existing utilization, as determined in appendix C, the number of Type 1 FTE in the corresponding fall quarter, and the projected Type 1 FTE as determined in appendix G. For example, given the following: Existing Weekly Utilization Summary Table Class Workstations in Project = 350 Lab Workstations in Project = 600 Net New Type 1 FTE = 500 We can convert the Net New FTE into class and lab FTE by recognizing each lab workstation produces one-half the credits per hour as a class workstation does; Projected Net New Class FTE = (Net New Type 1 FTE) x Class Workstations in Project / (Class Workstations in Project + (Lab Workstations in Project / 2)) = 500 x 350 / [350 + (600 / 2)] = 269.23 Projected Net New Lab FTE = (Net New Type 1 FTE) x (Lab Workstations in Project / 2) / (Class Workstations in Project + (Lab Workstations in Project / 2)) = 500 x 600 / 2 / [350 + (600 / 2)] = 230.77 Next converting the FTE to contact hours; Projected Net New Class Contact Hours = Projected Net New Class FTE x 15 Classroom Contact Hours per FTE = 269.23 x 15 = 4,038.46 Projected Net New Lab Contact Hours = Projected Net New Lab FTE x 30 Lab Contact Hours per FTE = 230.77 x 30 = 6,923.08

25

Contact Hours Workstations UtilizationClasses 24,383.16 1,137 21.45 Labs 15,408.28 1,015 15.19 Campus 39,791.44 2,151.00 18.50

We get the new numerator for utilization by adding the net new contact hours to the existing contact hours; Projected Class Contact Hours = Existing Class Contact Hours + Projected Net New Class Contact Hours = 20,344.70 + 4,038.46 = 24,383.16 Projected Lab Contact Hours = Existing Lab Contact Hours + Projected Net New Lab Contact Hours = 8,485.20 + 6,923.08 = 15,408.28 We get the new denominator for utilization by adding the number of net new workstations to the existing number of workstations; Future Class Workstations = Existing Class Workstations + Net New Class Workstations = 787 + 350 = 1,137 Future Lab Workstations = Existing Lab Workstations + Net New Lab Workstations = 415 + 600 = 1,015 The future utilization can now be estimated as; Future Class Utilization = Projected Class Contact Hours / Future Class Workstations = 24,383.16 / 1,137 = 21.45 Future Lab Utilization = Projected Lab Contact Hours / Future Lab Workstations = 15,408.28 / 1,015 = 15.19 Future Weekly Utilization Summary Table A spreadsheet that calculates utilization consistent with this methodology, and a spreadsheet with sample data, are both available here — http://www.sbctc.edu/colleges-staff/programs-services/capital-budget/capital-budget-development.aspx



26

Appendix E – Average Useful Life of Infrastructure

The following average useful lives are used in accounting for depreciating assets. Since this is an average, about half of the infrastructure is expected to last longer. Projects involving infrastructure with different average lives shall use a cost weighted average life for scoring relative to the criteria. If replacing existing infrastructure, the proposal will have both the cost weighted average useful life of the existing and proposed infrastructures. Infrastructure Average Useful

Life 1 Estimated

Cost Cost Weighted

Life Electrical Service/Distribution — underground

20

Electrical Utility Pole 20 Electrical Transformer — pad mounted

5

Electrical Transformer — in vault 5 Electrical Generator — free standing 5 Potable Water — piping 25 Potable Water — meters 25 Sewer lines — concrete 50 Sewer lines — brick 90 Sewer lines — metal 40 Storm drains — plastic 25 Storm drains — cast iron 30 Storm drains — metal corrugated 30 Storm drains — concrete 40 Storm drains — ditch/trench 100 Telecommunication — fiber optic conductors

5

Telecommunication networks between buildings2

7.5

Inter building communication infrastructure3

25

Other 4 Subtotals A = sum of

Estimated Costs

B = sum of Cost Weighted Lives

Cost Weighted Average Useful Life B / A Notes: 1 Average Useful Life in years is from Section 30.50.10 of the State Administrative and Accounting Manual Issued by Office of Financial Management unless otherwise noted. 2 California State University Capital Asset Guide, April 2012. 3 University of New Mexico Design Guidelines for Information Technology Infrastructure Facilities. 4 Provide copy or link to other data used in analysis.

27

Appendix F – Capital Asset Model

The following Capital Asset Model was adopted February 7, 2013.

Assignable Square Feet per FTE Student Type of Space FTE

Type Academic FTE Vocational FTE Basic Skills FTE

First 1,000

Additional First 1,000

Additional First 1,000

Additional

General Classroom 1 12.4 12.4 7.5 7.5 N/A N/A Basic Skills 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 27.6 27.6 Science Lab 1 6.0 6.0 3.5 3.5 N/A N/A Computer Lab (open) 2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Music 2 A one-time allowance of 4,000 asf @ CCs only Art 2 A one-time allowance of 6,000 asf @ CCs only Drama 2 A one-time allowance of 5,000 asf @ CCs only Physical Education ** 2 26.0 10.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Library 2 16.8 8.5 16.8 8.5 16.8 8.5 Faculty Office 2 8.1 8.1 10.8 10.8 8.1 8.1 Admin/Student Services 2 8.98 5.13 8.98 5.13 8.98 5.13 Student Center & Related 2 13.19 7.97 13.19 7.97 13.19 7.97 Childcare 2 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 Central Stores/Maintenance

2 7.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 7.0 4.0

Auditorium 2 A one-time, total space of 9,000 asf @ CCs and TCs FTE Type 1: Day On Campus w/o Online (Category 3N) FTE Type 2: Day On Campus plus Online of same intent regardless of time of day * Vocational space will be included in the CAM based on a formal analysis of space needs by program and projected enrollment growth. ** Calculation based on first 500 FTE.

28

Appendix G – Enrollment Forecasting

The State Board staff will provide a ten-year enrollment forecast for each college based on the previous fall quarter enrollment adjusted for expected population changes over the next ten years. There will be a total enrollment projection, a projection for sizing classrooms and labs called “Type 1” FTE, and another for sizing other facilities on a campus called “Type 2” FTE that includes online enrollment. The State Board projections include enrollment for academic transfer, workforce and basic skills courses. The projections exclude enrollment for continuing education courses and courses taught in prisons. The Type 1 and Type 2 projections for sizing facilities are based on the peak need for space on the campus so they exclude evening and weekend enrollments. High school students taking for-credit classes on the campus during the day through the running start program are included in the State Board enrollment projections. In general, the State Board’s population-based enrollment projections have been fairly accurate, but individual college projections can be off by large enough amounts to have an impact on capital project scoring. The projections are for a ten year period to account for the time it can take for a capital project to be funded, designed and constructed. The State Board projections will be provided in early 2017. If a college would like to provide an alternative ten-year projection for their Type 1 or 2 FTE, then it should be submitted to the State Board’s capital budget director before May 2017 so it can be reviewed by State Board staff and a task force from the Research and Planning Council (RPC) by the end of June 2017. The RPC task force will provide qualitative feedback on the proposed projection relative to the following goals: Consistency with definition of Type 1 or Type 2 FTE Use of strong and non-derivative data sources Having a minimum of 10 years of source data Use of valid statistical approach for building the forecast Inclusion of “what if” scenarios that explain what may affect the projection

Additional guidance on developing enrollment projections would be provided at the capital budget development workshops in early 2017. Time permitting; the RPC task force will review multiple iterations of a college’s projection. If the college chooses to include the alternative enrollment projection in the PRR, the RPC feedback will be provided to scorers of the major project proposals for their consideration.

29

Appendix H — Exterior Circulation Space

The area of a replacement project can be bigger than the building area being replaced by an amount equal to the exterior circulation area of the building being replaced. The exterior circulation area is the length of each exterior wall that has at least one classroom door that is the only student-access to the classroom, times ten-feet. See illustration below.

Roof Overhang

Exterior Wall

Interior Corridor

Classroom Classroom Classroom

Classroom Classroom Classroom

Exterior Circulation Area

10 feet

30

Appendix I – Allowable Scope Changes after Scoring

Generally, colleges should make every effort to complete the project as proposed. A college can make changes, for reasons internal to the operation of the college, which are not likely to have changed the project’s score by following these steps:

1. Describe the proposed change to the State Board’s capital budget director.

2. The State Board’s capital budget director will assess the potential impact of the proposed change on the objective and subjective criteria used to score the original proposal.

3. If the change would only impact objective components of the criteria; like facility

condition scores, square footage, building age, cost, or utilization; and, if the proposed change is not likely to have reduced the total score of the objective criteria, the proposed change will be allowed. The capital budget director will then report the approved change to WACTC’s capital committee at their next regularly scheduled meeting.

4. If the change could impact the more subjective criteria, the State Board’s capital budget

director will work with the college to provide information to WACTC’s capital committee for evaluation of the potential impact on the original proposal’s score. If the WACTC capital committee decides the change it not likely to have reduced the score, the proposed change will be allowed.

A college has even more flexibility when the project needs to be changed in response to an external cause. External causes include, but are not be limited to, construction funding below the requested level, delays in state funding, unforeseeable mitigation requirements from permitting authorities, unforeseeable code changes, and unforeseen archaeological impacts. A college can propose a change due to an external cause by following these steps:

1. Describe the external cause and proposed change to the State Board’s capital budget director. This may require some documentation to substantiate the cause.

2. The State Board’s capital budget director will work with the college to preserve the scope

and cost of the originally proposed project while mitigating the external cause of the change.

3. The capital budget director will then report the approved change to WACTC’s capital committee at their next regularly scheduled meeting.

Neither the capital budget director nor WACTC’s capital committee can create an obligation for additional state funding for the project. Based on the nature and timing of the change, it may need approval from the Office of Financial Management or the Legislature.

31

Appendix J – Identification of Opportunity Gaps and Solutions in the Built Environment The built environment can improve educational outcomes by addressing opportunity gaps at the community and technical colleges. Each college may have different gaps in educational outcomes that are best addressed by different aspects of the built environment. Since gaps and solutions vary from college to college, this criteria has colleges identify their own gaps in educational outcomes and then include project elements that are likely to help close them. The identification and proposed solutions should be consistent with the following:

• Outcomes are compared for a broad cohort of students with similar educational background and end goals (e.g., all award seeking students with fewer than 10 prior college credits).

• Outcomes are compared for a cohort of students with the same starting point and time frame to meet outcomes (e.g., students starting in Fall 2014 and finishing their program within three years).

• Outcomes represent key end goals (i.e., program completion, employment outcomes, and transfer outcomes) or key progress milestones to reach those end goals (e.g., credit completion milestones, math and English completion, or retention).

The points will be awarded using the following methodology that relies on three factors to award the points based on how likely the proposed solution is to have significant improvement in the college’s gaps in educational outcomes. The three factors and there values are:

A. Size of the number of students in the gap relative to the student body as a whole. This factor would be —

a. 0 if the sum of the number of students in the gaps is two percent or less of the student body,

b. 0.500 if the number of students in the gaps is more than two percent and less than 10 percent of the student body, and

c. 1.000 if the number of students in the gaps is 10 percent or more of the student body.

B. Size of the outcome gaps for those in the groups relative to the rest of the student body in percentage points. This is the outcome ratio of all students minus the ratio of the students in the gap. The numerator and denominator would depend on the gap. This factor would be —

a. 0 if the sum of the sizes of the gaps is two percentage points or less, b. 0.500 if the gaps are more than two percentage points and less than 10 percentage

points, and c. 1.000 if the gaps are 10 percentage points or more.

C. The likelihood of improvement due to the proposed solutions. a. C = 1.000 if there is evidence that the proposed solutions have had a significant

impact on similar opportunity gaps at the college or at another college. b. C = 0.666 if there is indirect evidence that the proposed solutions are likely to

have a significant impact on the identified opportunity gaps. Indirect evidence could include a student survey endorsing the proposed solutions, evidence that

New

32

similar solutions have had a significant impact on similar gaps, or evidence that the proposed solutions address a problem related to the identified gaps.

c. C = 0.333 if there is a clear logic model for how the proposed solutions are likely to have a significant impact on the identified gaps.

d. If the solutions have different likelihoods of improvement, the likelihood of improvement of all the solutions will be the student weighted likelihood of improvement for each group.

The number of unweighted points awarded to the proposal for this criteria = A x B x C x the number of unweighted points available for this criteria.

33

Appendix J – Identification of Opportunity Gaps and Solutions in the Built Environment South Puget Sound Community College Example

Students who take the Enhanced Student Success Class are more likely to complete.

South Puget Sound Community College (SPSCC) launched an Enhanced Student Success (ESS) Class for new college students who are not academically prepared for college work Fall 2014. The outcome of this class has resulted in increased persistence for students who are successful in the ESS class. Over the last four fall quarters, 338 students is the average number of students who have received a recommendation to enroll in the ESS class. However, on average, only 152 actually enroll within the first two quarters of attendance at SPSCC. Because the outcome of successfully passing this class has proven to be beneficial to student persistence, the college will require ESS for specific student populations, especially for students that are choosing not to enroll after a recommendation to do so. If SPSCC mandates a class requirement, learning space is required to sufficiently meet the needs of the demand. Currently, various teaching space is sufficient to schedule all the necessary classes because a sub-set of the target population is enrolled in the ESS classes (students requiring pre-college work who elect to enroll). However, as this program moves to requirement for this specific population, a larger dedicated space would be necessary to meet the scheduling needs and provide an inclusive central first year experience resource center. Building 26 would be a great location to dedicate to the Enhanced Student Success classes. This building is adjacent to the main Student Services building, the bus loop, and a very short walk to the Student Union Building. Currently this space is not ideal for teaching and learning; the list is long of problems that make it not conducive to teaching and learning best practices.

• On average, 338 students need ESS each fall quarter. • The average number of students who elected NOT to enroll in ESS is 186 students each

quarter.

Retention rate of students who needed ESS but choose not to enroll.

Retention rate of ALL students who needed ESS (including those who choose not to enroll).

34

• The number of students returning who elected NOT to enroll in ESS is 93 students each quarter.

• The relative size of the cohort in the gap is 93/338 = 27.5% so A = 1.000 • The relative size of the gap is the difference in retention rates of those in the gap and the

larger population of those who needed ESS was 55.6% - 32.8% = 22.8 percentage points so B = 1.000

• For this example we would survey the students who needed ESS but did not take it to find out why they did not take it. Since this survey has not taken place, we will assume a hypothetical result: students did not enroll in ESS because the limited offerings of the class due to available space did not fit into the student’s schedule. By combining this with space utilization data to substantiate the lack of appropriate space, the major project proposal would include dedicated space for ESS so C = 0.666

• A * B * C = 1.000 * 1.000 * 0.666 = 0.666 time the available unweighted points in each category for the proposed project.

35

Appendix J – Identification of Opportunity Gaps and Solutions in the Built Environment Renton Technical College Example

Students in high-wage programs are more likely to complete.

Renton Technical College would build a center promoting College and Career Pathways (CCP) student transition into college level programs, with a strong emphasis on transition into high wage STEM programs. Factor A: Renton Technical College’s CCP students comprise between 37% and 42% of the College’s overall enrollment2 Year College and Career Pathways Enrollment College Level Enrollment 2015-16 36% 64% 2016-17 40% 60% 2017-18 41% 59%

Transitioned College and Career Pathways students’ share of enrollment in Professional Technical programs stands at 28% of total professional technical enrollment3

Regardless of which lens is applied to the population, the relative size of the cohort exceeds 10% of the student body, so A = 1.000.

2 Includes students with Intents A,B,D,E,F,M,I, and G. Vocational Supplemental and Apprenticeship students excluded from totals. College level students include all students not coded to intents D and E. 3 Based on SBCTC student achievement initiative data: transitioned students are identified using the field Current or Prior Basic Skills. Prof tech students are identified using the fields first and last intent where either field equals F,M,I or G.

36

Factor B: Based on wage and placement data the College receives from Data for Linking Outcomes Assessment (DLOA), the College knows that graduates coded to high wage programs by SBCTC 4 earn more than their peers in medium or low wage programs.

Grad Year 25th % Median Wage 75th % High Wage Programs 2014-15 $16.95 $20.62 $27.69

2015-16 $20.51 $25.49 $31.48 2016-17 $26.41 $30.57 $36.58

Low+Medium Wage Programs

Grad Year 25th % Median Wage 75th % 2014-15 $13.20 $16.17 $18.48 2015-16 $14.43 $16.69 $19.48 2016-17 $15.36 $17.92 $21.19

Although transitioned CCP student’s share of medium wage programs increased over the past three years, their share of enrollment in high wage programs decreased5. Prof-Tech Students Cohort Year Range Headcount Percentage Non-Transitioned Student

2015-16 Low 561 32% Medium 915 51% High 305 17%

2016-17 Low 508 32% Medium 804 51% High 277 17%

2017-18 Low 548 35% Medium 759 48% High 262 17%

Prior CCP 2015-16 Low 212 45% Medium 225 48% High 35 7%

2016-17 Low 244 46% Medium 271 52% High 11 2%

2017-18 Low 252 40% Medium 359 57% High 22 3%

RTC defines the gap as the percentage non-transitioned students enrolled in high wage programs compared the number of prior CCP students enrolled in high wage programs. For the most recent year of data where data is available (2017-18), the gap exceeds 10% (3% for transitioned CCP students enrolled in high wage programs compared to 17% non-CCP prof tech students enrolled in high wage programs), so B = 1.000.

4 Each release of DLOA includes an SBCTC CIP classification list coding programs to either low, medium, or high wage. In DLOA this field is called LMH. 5 Data source: SAI Demographics Enrollment Table.

37

Factor C: This transition center builds of educational research focusing on the correlations between belonging and recruitment/retention/completion of marginalized populations of students in STEM programs. The College would track progress through two leading indicators: CCP enrollment in high wage programs, and their subsequent retention in those programs. The College would use only one lagging indicator: the number of CCP students earning credentials in high demand programs. Research examples include: Toven-Lindsey, B., Levis-Fitzgerald, M., Barber, P. H., & Hasson, T. (2015). Increasing persistence in undergraduate science majors: A model for institutional support of underrepresented students. CBE Life Sciences Education, 14(2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-05-0082 Real world implementation: UCLA PEERS program (Program for Excellence in Education and Research in the Sciences). PEERS is a dedicated center at UCLA that provides underrepresented students professional development in life/physical science mathematics. Strong components of PEERS include collaborative learning workshops, social events with other science students, and personalized academic advising. The following article includes a quantitative study comparing PEERS to non-PEERS control group: Toven-Lindsey, B., Levis-Fitzgerald, M., Barber, P. H., & Hasson, T. (2015). Increasing persistence in undergraduate science majors: A model for institutional support of underrepresented students. CBE Life Sciences Education, 14(2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-05-0082 With evidence that the proposed solution will have significant impact on the gap C= 1.000. A * B * C = 1.000 * 1.000 * 1.000 = 1.000 times the available unweighted points in each category for the proposed project.

https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-05-0082

http://www.ugresearchsci.ucla.edu/progpeers.htm

https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-05-0082

38

Appendix K – Faculty Offices integrated with Informal Learning Spaces (FOiwILS) Additional unweighted points are available for the faculty office areas in renovation, replacement, and new area projects if the office area is configured to improve opportunities for student/faculty interaction. These faculty offices are expected to be visible from and open to informal learning spaces. See illustrations below:

New

TAB 3 Attachment C

Major Capital Projects in Pipeline as of April 12, 2019

Construction Order College Number Phase Project

1 Wenatchee 30000985 Construction Wells Hall Replacement2 Olympic 30000986 Construction Shop Building Renovation3 Pierce Fort Steilacoom 30000987 Construction Cascade Building Renovation - Phase 34 South Seattle 30000988 Construction Automotive Technology5 Bates 30000989 Construction Medical Mile Health Science Center6 Shoreline 30000990 Construction Allied Health, Science & Manufacturing7 Spokane Falls 30001458 Construction Fine and Applied Arts Replacement8 Clark 30000135 Construction North Clark County Satellite9 Everett 30000136 Construction Learning Resource Center10 Grays Harbor 30000127 Construction Student Services and Instructional Building11 North Seattle 30001451 Construction Library Building Renovation12 Walla Walla 30001452 Construction Science and Technology Building Replacement13 Cascadia 30001453 Construction Center for Science and Technology14 Pierce Puyallup 40000293 Design STEM building 15 Bellevue 40000168 Design Center for Transdisciplinary Learning and Innovation 16 Lake Washington 40000102 Design Center for Design 17 Bates 40000130 Design Fire Service Training Center 18 Olympic 40000103 Design Innovation & Technology Learning Center 19 Everett 40000190 Design Baker Hall Replacement 20 Tacoma 40000104 Design Center for Innovative Learning and Engagement 21 Wenatchee 40000198 Design Center for Technical Education and Innovation 22 Shoreline 40000214 Design STE(A)M Education Center 23 Lower Columbia 40000106 Design Center for Vocational and Transitional Studies 24 Spokane 40000107 Design Apprenticeship Center 25 Columbia Basin 40000108 Design Performing Arts Building Replacement 26 Whatcom 40000137 Design Technology and Engineering Center 27 Cascadia 40000222 Design CC5 Gateway building 28 Edmonds 40000114 Design Triton Learning Commons 29 Renton 40000204 Design Health Sciences Center 30 Bellingham 40000256 Design Engineering Technology Center - Bldg J Replacement 31 Centralia 40000109 Design Teacher Education and Family Development Center 32 Skagit 40000110 Design Library/Culinary Arts Building 33 Highline 40000105 Design Welcome Center for Student Success 34 Clark 40000227 Design Hanna/Foster/Hawkins Complex Replacement 35 Peninsula 40000111 Design Advanced Technology Center 36 South Seattle 40000231 Design Rainier Hall Renovation 37 Seattle Central 40000294 Design Broadway Achievement Center

TAB 3

40

STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES

RESOLUTION 19-05-17

A resolution relating to development of the State Board’s 2021-23 capital budget.

WHEREAS, the State Board adopts policies to guide the development of college budget requests and the allocation of resources; and

WHEREAS, capital projects that include appropriated funding and cost $5 million or more must compete against each other to receive limited state resources; and

WHEREAS, State Board staff have worked with the system’s stakeholders over the two years to update the scoring criteria in response to policy objectives, market conditions and other administrative and legislative requirements; and

WHEREAS, a selection of new major projects for the 2021-23 capital budget request is necessary to identify the major capital projects needed for the community and technical colleges; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the proposed 2021-23 major project scoring criteria in Attachment B shall be used to evaluate the college proposals relative to the State Board’s policy objectives and goals; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, all thirty-four of the colleges are eligible to submit one major project proposal for the selection; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, all major project proposals that score at least 70 points will be added to the pipeline of major projects in rank order below the existing projects in the pipeline; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges authorizes the Executive Director to make adjustments to this action, including any necessary changes to the State Board’s Policy Manual, as necessary, for actions taken by the Governor, Legislature, data corrections, externally imposed restrictions or guidelines, uniform accounting and reporting requirements, and unanticipated changes in state or federal law.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED on 05/02/2019

Attest

____________________________________ Jan Yoshiwara, secretary

____________________________________ Anne Fennessy, chair

Tab 4

1


Tab 4

2019-21 Operating Budget Decision Points

Brief Description During this item, the State Board will review the major budget investments and discuss potential methods for distribution. At the time of this writing, the House and Senate have begun to conference on the Legislative budget. If session ends on time, there will be a final Legislative budget to review and discuss at your meeting. If the Legislature goes into special session, we will review and discuss the major investments in all three budget proposals.

How does this item link to the State Board’s 2018-19 priorities? Legislative operating and capital appropriations to the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges are the foundation for the system’s operation. State resources provide the means to make progress on our goals. The Board has identified college system priorities as Long-Term Advocacy, Equity/Diversity/Inclusion, Completions, Enrollments, Career Connections, and ctcLink success.

Background information and analysis Background on State Board Allocations to Districts

RCW 28B.50.090 authorizes the State Board to receive state funds for the system and to establish guidelines for the disbursement of funds to college districts. Each year, the State Board adopts an annual allocation to the districts before July 1, the start of the fiscal year.

In 2016, the State Board adopted a new allocation model that made significant changes to the methods for funding college districts. Since then, there have been several consistent categories of funding within the allocation to districts. Below is a refresher on those categories:

I. Within the allocation model • Performance Funding — Student Achievement Initiative • Minimum Operating Allocation • District Enrollment Allocation Base • Priority Weighted Enrollments

II. Outside the allocation model, also known as Safe Harbor:

• Legislative Proviso — Language in the budget bill that places conditions and limitations on the use of appropriations.

• Earmarks of the State Board — Funds identified by the State Board for specific purposes. o Annual budget increases for compensation and facilities are held in Safe Harbor for four

years. After four years, the first year of increases is distributed through the allocation model and another year of increases enters Safe Harbor.

Tab 4

2

o Program- or population-specific funds identified by the State Board, such as Opportunity Scholarship funding.

Legislative Operating Budget Process

At the time of the last State Board meeting, the House budget proposal and the associated new revenue were the main topic of discussion. The Senate budget had not yet been released. A summary of the Senate budget was sent to the State Board and system stakeholders shortly after it was released in late March. A four-way comparison of the SBCTC, Governor, House, and Senate budgets was distributed in early April.

Some background about the final weeks of the operating budget process: The Senate and House budget writers (chairs of the budget committees) along with leaders from the majority party in both chambers, negotiate the final Legislative budget in conference, a series closed-door meetings. Once an agreement is reached, the budget writers release their conference budget (hopefully before the end of the regular session). Once public, the conference budget is quickly moved to the chambers for floor votes, but stakeholders have a very brief window to comment on the budget and request changes. Once the Legislature passes their final budget, it goes to the Governor who has approximately three weeks to review it and consider vetoes, usually of specific provisions. Once the Governor signs the budget, it becomes the enacted biennial budget and it cannot be amended until the supplemental budget process the following year.

The table below provides a list of the major investments in each of the three budget proposals (Governor, House and Senate). Seeing an item in all three budgets usually indicates a high likelihood that the item will be in the final, enacted budget. For ease of discussion, the amounts shown below are biennial (two-year) totals rounded to the millions. Please note, if a Legislative budget is available on May 1, 2019, a summary will be provided in-person at the State Board meeting.

Major Investments in 2019-21 Budgets

Biennial totals in millions

Governor new revenue

items

House new revenue

items

Senate

Compensation-Related Items 1. COLAs & Wage Increases $64 $63 $62 2. Regional Pay for All King County Employees $17 $17 $17 3. Foundational Support $19 $14 $11 4. Additional Compensation Support $ 9 5. Nurse Faculty Salaries $40 6. High Demand Faculty $20

New Policy Investments

7. Guided Pathways $ 8 $55 8. Career Connect Washington $23 $ 3 9. Experienced Worker Training (Job Skills) $12 10. Enhanced Student Supports $26

Total (rounded) $170 $210 $100

Through a series of slides (Appendix A), the State Board will review methods used in the past to allocate funding. It will also discuss possible methods for allocating new investments. A final decision is not needed at

Tab 4

3

this meeting. Staff are seeking guidance as they prepare the operating budget allocation for State Board review in June. The State Board always has discretion to hold funding for certain items in reserve if it would like more time to consider allocation decisions. We believe the college presidents will have recommendations for the State Board on allocation methods, but we are unsure if those will be offered at the May or June State Board meeting.

Potential questions • Are the past allocation methods still appropriate for the FY 2020 allocation? • What does the State Board want to incentivize with its allocation to the colleges?

Staff Recommendation No staff recommendation needed at this time.

Next Steps The State Board meets on May 1-2, 2019 and June 26-27, 2019. Colleges will be anxious to receive budget allocation information as quickly as possible so they can finalize their FY 2020 budgets before the end of the academic year. Based on the timing of the Legislative budget, the State Board may wish to schedule a phone meeting in early June to review and approve the FY 2020 operating budget allocation to districts.


Prepared by: Cherie Berthon, operating budget director

Cherie (360) 704-1023, [email protected]

Allocation Decisions

2019-21 OPERATING BUDGET

Cherie Berthon, Operating Budget Director

May 1, 2019



Governornew revenue

items

Housenew revenue

items

Senate

Compensation-Related Items

1. COLAs & Wage Increases $64 $63 $62

2. Regional Pay for All King County Employees $17 $17 $17

3. Foundational Support $19 $14 $11

4. Additional Compensation Support $ 9

5. Nurse Faculty Salaries $40

6. High Demand Faculty $20


7. Guided Pathways $ 8 $55

8. Career Connect Washington $23 $ 3

9. Experienced Worker Training (Job Skills) $12

10. Enhanced Student Supports $26

Total (rounded) $170 $210 $100

2



Governor House SenatePast Methodsfor Distribution

Compensation-Related Items

1. COLAs & Wage Increases $64 $63 $62 % share of system payroll

2. Regional Pay for All King County Employees $17 $17 $17

3. Foundational Support $19 $14 $11

4. Additional Compensation Support $ 9

5. Nurse Faculty Salaries $40

6. High Demand Faculty $20


7. Guided Pathways $ 8 $55 RFP process

8. Career Connect Washington $23 $ 3

9. Experienced Worker Training (Job Skills) $12 Application process

10. Enhanced Student Supports $26Total (rounded) $170 $210 $100

3



Governor House SenatePast Methodsfor distribution

Some options for discussion

Compensation-Related Items1. COLAs & Wage Increases $64 $63 $62 % share of

system payroll

2. Regional Pay for All King County Employees

$17 $17 $17 % share of King County colleges’ payroll

3. Foundational Support* $19 $14 $11 1. Share of enrollments

2. Share of compensation

3. Share of compensation considering regional pay

4. Additional Compensation Support $ 9 In the same manner as foundational support.

5. Nurse Faculty Salaries $40 Nurse faculty data.

6. High Demand Faculty $20 1. Share of faculty teaching high-demand courses

2. Share of all faculty payroll

4

*Foundational support was calculated by totaling all new items budgeted to the tuition account, subtracting projected tuition revenue, and providing the difference in “foundational support.” It was not provided in association with any specific items.



Governor House SenatePast Methodsfor distribution

Some options for discussion

New Policy Investments7. Guided Pathways $ 8 $55 RFP process 1. Equalize base funding

2. Share of enrollments

3. RFP process

8. Career Connect Washington $23 $ 3 RFP process depending on CCW criteria

9. Experienced Worker Training (Job Skills)

$12 RFP process Current program process of applications.

10. Enhanced Student Supports $26 Share of student headcount.

5

Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

QUESTIONS & DISCUSSION

For more information:

Cherie Berthon, Operating Budget Director

[email protected]

TAB 5a

1

CONSENT ITEM (RESOLUTION 19-05-15) May 2, 2019

Tab 5a

Seattle Central College property disposal

Brief Description

Seattle Colleges is seeking approval to dispose of the property known as the South Annex

How does this item link to the State Board’s 2018-19 priorities? The disposal of this property supports responsible stewardship of college capital resources.

Background information and analysis Seattle Central College owns three parcels on the southwest corner of the main campus boundary. These three properties include:

Parcel Number State UFI Address Square Footage Description

600300-0440 None 1500 Broadway Parking lot

600300-0442 A07934 909 E Pine 4,632 1912 building

600300-0445 A05447 1534 Broadway 17,123 1906 building

The parking lot is currently operated by a third party. The two buildings are leased by third parties and not used for any college activities. This property was purchased in 1995 for $2,100,000 using local funds. The buildings have exceeded their useful life for institutional needs and are not recommended for renovation.

The college’s master plan is shifting campus priority away from the southwest boundary to the North Plaza on Broadway. Proceeds from the property sale will be used in a future science, technology, engineering and math/information technology building near the main Broadway Edison complex. Disposing of these properties is consistent with the Seattle Central College development plans presented to the State Board at its October 25, 2017 meeting.

As presented in the October 15, 2018 State Board meeting, governance of the acquisition and disposal of real property within the community and technical college system is shared between the State Board, individual college boards of trustees, the Department of Enterprise Services, the Office of Financial Management and the Department of Commerce.

Coordination with the Department of Enterprise Services is underway to evaluate the future use of the property for affordable housing. Consistent with RCW 43.17.400 priority will be given to entities that would provide

TAB 5a

2

affordable housing and related facilities. Two community organizations, YouthCare and Capitol Hill Housing have been identified as potential buyers of these properties.

The Seattle Board of Trustees approved the property sale on February 8, 2018. Estimated selling price is currently $9 million and will be conveyed through fee-simple transfer of the deed. Once transferred, the college will have no future risks or liability.

Potential questions Is this project consistent with State Board’s goals of being responsive to the changing needs in the community and using resources efficiently?

Recommendation/preferred result Staff recommends approval of Resolution 19-05-15 giving Seattle College district the authority to dispose of parcels 600300-0440, 600300-0442, and 600300-0445, commonly named the South Annex.




TAB 5a

3


RESOLUTION 19-05-15

A resolution relating to Seattle Colleges’ request to dispose of the property commonly known as the South Annex.

WHEREAS, the parking lot parcel 6000300-0440, and two building parcels 600300-0442 and 600300-0445 have exceeded their useful life and are no longer used by the college; and

WHEREAS, proceeds from the sale of this property will be used for a future science, technology, engineering and math/information technology building near the Broadway Edison complex consistent with the updated campus master plan; and

WHEREAS, the Department of Enterprise Services is evaluating suitable developers to carry out the community demand for affordable housing; and

WHEREAS, appraised value is currently $9 million; and

WHEREAS, on February 8, 2018, Seattle Colleges’ Board of Trustees requested authority to dispose of the South Annex properties; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges authorizes Seattle Colleges to dispose of parcels 600300-0440, 600300-0442, and 600300-0445, commonly named the South Annex.



Attest



TAB 5b

1


Tab 5b

Skagit Valley College — local expenditure authority increase for soccer field improvements

Brief Description

Skagit Valley College is seeking approval to use an additional $109,000 of local funds to complete construction of the soccer field improvements.

How does this item link to the State Board’s 2018-19 priorities? This project supports enrollments and completions by providing modern campus facilities.

Background information and analysis State Board resolutions 16-11-58 and 17-05-30 previously approved local capital expenditure authority not to exceed $2,225,000.

The soccer field improvements are near completion and an additional $109,000 is needed due to seasonal weather construction delays, latent conditions, and owner approved modifications. The total project cost is now estimated to be $2,334,000.

Skagit Valley College’s vice-president of administrative services, under delegated authority from the Skagit Valley College Board of Trustees, approved this request on April 11, 2019.

Potential questions Is this project consistent with State Board’s goals of being responsive to the changing needs in the community and using resources efficiently?

Recommendation/preferred result Staff recommends approval of Resolution 19-05-16 giving Skagit Valley College the authority to spend up to an additional $109,000 in local funds toward the construction of the soccer field improvements.




TAB 5b

2


RESOLUTION 19-05-16

A resolution relating to Skagit Valley Colleges’ request to use up to an additional $109,000 in local funds for soccer field improvements.

WHEREAS, State Board resolutions 16-11-58 and 17-05-30 previously approved local capital expenditure authority not to exceed $2,225,000; and

WHEREAS, weather related construction delays, latent conditions, and owner approved modifications bring the estimated total project cost to $2,334,000; and

WHEREAS, Skagit Valley College’s vice-president of administrative services, under delegated authority from the Skagit Valley College Board of Trustees, approved this request on April 11, 2019; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges authorizes Skagit Valley College to spend up to an additional $109,000 in local funds for the construction of soccer field improvements.



Attest



TAB 5c

1


Tab 5c

Approval of 2019-20 state board meeting dates

Brief Description The State Board adopts a schedule of regular meetings each fiscal year for publication in the Washington State Register. Meetings are held approximately seven times per year on community and technical college campuses and at the State Board offices at intervals of six to eight weeks. Locations rotate among all 34 colleges, balancing visits on the east and west sides of the state. During legislative sessions, meetings are held in or near Olympia.

How does this item link to the State Board’s 2018-19 goals? The two-day meetings include a study session on the first day designed to provide board members with an in-depth discussion about policy issues and a regular business meeting on the second day when action items are addressed. The proposed meeting schedule is designed to align properly with the Board’s current goals.

Background information and analysis The following schedule of State Board meetings is proposed for 2019-20: August 26-28, 2019, State Board Retreat, Skamania Lodge October 2-3, 2019, Location to be determined December 4-5, 2019, Pierce College Fort Steilacoom February 5-6, 2020, State Board Office March 25-26, 2020, State Board Office May 6-7, 2020, Location to be determined June 24-25, 2020, Columbia Basin College

Potential questions

Are there any concerns with the proposed dates?

Recommendation/preferred result It is recommended that the State Board adopt Resolution 18-06-32 approving its schedule of meeting dates and locations for 2018-19 for publication in the Washington State Register.


Prepared by: Beth Gordon, executive assistant (360) 704-4309, [email protected]

TAB 5c

2


RESOLUTION 19-05-18 A resolution relating to the 2019-20 State Board meeting schedule. WHEREAS the State Board adopts its meeting schedule for the fiscal year for publication in the Washington State Register; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges has agreed upon the following meeting dates and locations for 2019-20: August 26-28, 2019, State Board Retreat, Skamania Lodge October 2-3, 2019, Location to be determined December 4-5, 2019, Pierce College Fort Steilacoom February 5-6, 2020, State Board Office March 25-26, 2020, State Board Office May 6-7, 2020, Location to be determined June 24-25, 2020, Columbia Basin College BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges authorizes the Executive Director to make adjustments to this action, including any necessary changes to the State Board’s schedule, as necessary, for actions taken by the governor, legislature, externally imposed restrictions or guidelines, and unanticipated changes in state or federal law.


Attest



TAB 5d

1

STATE BOARD MEETING MINUTES

State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, Olympia Business Meeting: Thursday, March 28 // 7:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.

Board members Anne Fennessy, chair // Wayne Martin, vice chair // Jay Reich // Carol Landa McVicker Phyllis Gutierrez Kenney // Fred Whang // Ben Bagherpour // Crystal Donner // Chelsea Mason

Jan Yoshiwara, executive director // Beth Gordon, executive assistant

Statutory Authority: Laws of 1991, Chapter 28B.50 Revised Code of Washington

Call to order and adoption of agenda Chair Anne Fennessy called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m., welcomed those present, and asked for audience introductions.

Motion: Moved by Jay Reich, seconded by Carol Landa McVicker, and unanimously approved by the Board the adoption of its March 28, 2019, regular meeting agenda with the addition of adding Resolution 19-03-15 for consideration under the Legislative Report.

Approval of consent agenda (Resolutions 19-02-01 to 19-02-04) a. South Puget Sound CC, increase for Lacey 3 renovations

Resolution 19-02-01 b. Property from Department of Natural Resources

Resolution 19-02-02 c. Centralia College, property acquisition, 209 S. Iron, 226 S. Rock

Resolution 19-02-03 d. Columbia Basin College, property acquisition, St. Andrews Loop

Resolution 19-02-04 e. December 6, 2018, State Board Meeting Minutes

Motion: Moved by Wayne Martin, seconded by Jay Reich, and unanimously approved by the Board the adoption of its March 28, 2019, consent agenda.

State Board Priorities – Guided Pathways and Student Achievement Imitative Update This board heard a presentation that provides an overview and summary of the student outcome milestones that comprise the community and technical college’s performance-based funding system and the Student Achievement Initiative. The overview included a brief history of the Student Achievement Initiative, the policy focus shifts that have led to changes in the milestones, and a five-year trend analysis of the outcomes at the system level. Colleges showing growth in each area were also highlighted. The outcomes analysis disaggregated by key student populations in alignment with the Board’s priorities were also discussed.

TAB 5d

2

Budget Proposals and Revenue Forecast Update The biennial budget process began officially last September when the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC) and all other state agencies and institutions of higher education, submitted their budget proposals to the Governor and Legislature. In the operating budget, SBCTC requested approximately $190 million in new policy investments and approximately $627 million in capital appropriations. Governor Inslee’s biennial budget proposals were released December 13, with $175 million in additional operating funding and $338 million in capital for our system. These proposals were dependent on new laws that would generate $3.7 billion in additional revenue for the state. Since the 2019 Legislative Session began, the chairs of the House Appropriations Committee, House Capital Committee, and the Senate Ways and Means Committee have been preparing to release their budget proposals. Legislative budget writers have worked with members and staff to review agency requests, the Governor’s proposal and new operating budget policies. The March Revenue Forecast, provided by the Washington State Economic and Revenue Forecast Council, is the last projection of revenue collections for the 2019-21 biennium prior to the Legislative budget process. It provides budget writers with the revenue “ceiling” they can count on under current law. Due to Washington’s balanced budget requirements, if the Legislature wishes to spend more than expected revenue collections provide, they must pass new laws to increase taxes or other forms of revenue. Governor Inslee’s biennial budget proposal includes $4 billion in revenue increases. Preliminary information from the Economic Revenue Forecast Council’s Economic Review on March 7, 2019, indicate:

• The preliminary economic forecast for Washington is similar to the November forecast • While the labor market continues to be strong, wage growth and inflation remain moderate • Revenue collections since the November forecast are 2.9 percent higher than expected.

Legislative Update The Board was briefed on the current status of the 2019 legislative priorities and emerging issues including:

Operating Budget

With a focus on competitive compensation for college faculty and staff, funding for Guided Pathways, and programming for high demand workforce needs, the operating budget request provides much needed services to our students and enhance Washington’s community and technical college system’s ability to respond to ever growing and ever changing employer demands in their regions around the state.

Capital Budget

The Capital Budget request provides students with high-quality classroom and lab space and places for educational support so they can achieve their goals. Our college system faces a backlog of needed projects which funding of the 2019 request to the legislature would greatly reduce. Overall, the list will fund 37 major projects at 29 colleges and minor projects needed at all 34 colleges.

TAB 5d

3

Policy Issues Statuses are current at the time of this agenda writing on March 19.

State Board Request Legislation

• HB 1715, Removing school districts’ ability to withhold grades and transcripts of students. o If a student owes a fine or fee to a school district and the payment of that fine prevents

a college from receiving that student’s grades or transcripts, that fine or fee will not be required to be paid.

o Status: Passed House - Referred to Senate Early Learning & K-12 Education

• SB 5113 and HB 1714, Concerning community and technical colleges awarding high school diplomas.

o A community or technical college may issue a high school diploma or certificate at the time a student receives an Associate’s Degree if the student does not already have a high school diploma. This would apply to students age 16 and older.

o Status: Both bills passed - HB 1714 had a hearing on March 14 in Senate Higher Education & Workforce Development

Other issues in the 2019 legislative session for discussion:

• SB 5327, Expanding career connected learning opportunities. o Establishes coordinators to develop and expand opportunities for academic credit for

career launch programs at institutions of higher education. o Creates a competitive grant program to support regional networks and program

intermediaries in expanding career connected learning opportunities. o Status: Passed Senate. Hearing in House College & Workforce Committee 3/19

• SB 5393 Establishing a statewide free college program by changing the state need grant to the Washington college promise scholarship.

o Status: Passed Senate. Hearing in House College & Workforce Committee 3/19

• HB 1973 Access and affordability for dual credit programs. o Fees and Books for Running Start and College in the High School students paid for

College Bound Scholars. o Fees and Books for Running Start and College in the High School students waived by

the legislature – subject to appropriation. o Status: Passed the House. Hearing in Senate Higher Education Committee 3/19

• SB 5800 Support for homeless students o Similar to SB 6262 from 2018, this bill provides additional services for homeless

students at colleges and universities. o Status: Passed Senate. Referred to House Committee on College & Workforce

Development. Hearing in House College & Workforce Committee 3/19

• HB 1702, Online Educational Resources/Low Cost college materials o Similar to HB 1375 from 2017, this bill requires community and technical college

courses with low cost materials to be highlighted in a college on-line course catalog. Low cost is defined as less than $50.

o Status: Passed House. Referred for public hearing in the Senate Committee on Higher Education & Workforce Development. Hearing on 3/14

TAB 5d

4

Board member Jay Reich obtained the floor from Madame Chair, Anne Fennessy, and made a motion adopt Resolution 19-03-15, relating to the need for a dedicated revenue source for higher education in Washington State. Board member Phyllis Gutierrez seconded the motion. The Board engaged in a discussion of the presented draft Resolution 19-03-15. Board member Chelsea Mason, offered a friendly amendment to include apprenticeships in the language of the proposed resolution. Vice Chair, Wayne Martin, seconded the friendly amendment.

A roll call vote was requested by Chair Anne Fennessy for adoption of Resolution 19-03-15 including the addition of the proposed friendly amendment:

Ben Bagherpour – abstain Crystal Donner – aye Phyllis Gutierrez Kenney – aye Carol Landa McVicker – aye Chelsea Mason – aye Jay Reich – aye Fred Whang – aye Wayne Martin – aye Motion Passed

WACTC Report WACTC president, David Beyer, reported on the president’s involvement in the legislative session and on recent meetings.

Chair Report and Board Member Discussion • Appointment of Nominating Committee for 2019-20 State Board Chair and Vice Chair.

Chair Fennessy appointed Phyllis Gutierrez Kenney to serve as chair of the committee and Crystal Donner and Ben Bagherpour to serve as members on the committee. They will propose candidates and request a vote for approval at the June 2019 meeting per the State Board bylaws.

• Board Members Carol Landa McVicker and Fred Whang reported on their experience at the ACCT National Legislative Summit in Washington DC.

• Board Vice Chair, Wayne Martin, reported on the Baccalaureate Conference he attended in New York.

Adjournment/next meeting There being no further business, the State Board adjourned its regular meeting of March 28, 2019, at 2 p.m. The State Board will hold its next meeting on May 1-2, 2019, at the Clover Park Technical College.

Jan Yoshiwara, secretary Anne Fennessy, chair

TAB 6

1

REGULAR ITEM May 2, 2019

Tab 6

Applied Baccalaureate degree proposals, Statements of Need

Brief Description

A conceptual discussion will occur between the State Board members and the community and technical colleges proposing to offer applied baccalaureate degrees.

The Statement of Need document addresses six areas:

• Relationship to institutional role, mission, and program priorities

• Support of the statewide strategic plans

• Employer/community demand for graduates with baccalaureate level of education proposed in the program

• Applied baccalaureate programs build from existing professional and technical degree program offered by the institution

• Student demand for program within service area

• Efforts to maximize state resources to serve place-bound students

How does this item link to the State Board’s 2018-19 Priorities?

The State Board goals are “designed to raise education attainment, open more doors to education–particularly for our fast-growing adult population–and build upon our tradition of excellence.” Colleges offering applied baccalaureate degrees meet the needs of changing economies by increasing the number of skilled employees in the areas of greatest need. Through applied baccalaureate degrees, colleges create greater access to higher education by enrolling underserved populations, particularly place-bound working adults, and ensure community and technical colleges are affordable and accessible for students. The following three goals are addressed through the approval process of applied baccalaureate degree programs:

• Promoting student achievement and success by increasing the number of applied baccalaureate degrees conferred;

• Increasing access to post-secondary education by enrolling more underrepresented, first generation and adult students, active military, veterans and their dependents, and develop means to attract former students needing credits for degrees, certificates, or credentials;

• Building on the system’s strength and successes by ensuring balance among mission areas: basic skills, workforce, transfer and applied baccalaureate.

TAB 6

To date, the State Board has approved 102 applied baccalaureate/baccalaureate degree programs at 29 colleges with students currently enrolled in 92 programs at 28 colleges, 8 proposals are engaged in the approval process, and 13 colleges have expressed interest in 17 additional programs. In 2017-2018, there were 3,142 students enrolled in Bachelor of Applied Science (BAS) programs representing approximately 1.8 percent of total enrollments in the college system.

(Attachment A: Applied baccalaureate degree programs)

Background information and analysis

3a) Edmonds Community College – BAS in Advanced Manufacturing and Materials

Edmonds Community College proposes a Bachelor of Applied Science degree in Advanced Manufacturing and Materials beginning fall 2020. The degree was developed based on discussions with Boeing and a way to fill a gap in the labor force that works with composite materials and additive manufacturing. Graduates will demonstrate technical expertise in engineering materials as well as their properties and manufacturing processes; articulate and demonstrate professional integrity through the ability to communicate effectively to a diverse audience; apply the principles of quality, safety, and organizational skills to a manufacturing environment; and utilize knowledge of analysis techniques to evaluate and determine solutions to technical problems. The proposed degree would be Edmonds Community College’s second applied baccalaureate degree.

3b) North Seattle College – BAS in Accounting with International Accounting

North Seattle College proposes a Bachelor of Applied Science degree in Accounting, with International Accounting, beginning winter 2020 to serve the support businesses, public agencies, and non-profit organizations in all sectors of the economy in the central Puget Sound area. This would be the second applied baccalaureate program in accounting in Washington State (alongside Bellevue College), and would address the area’s long-standing unmet demand for accounting professionals. This proposed degree would bring together theory and practice and prepare graduates to work effectively in positions that require applied accounting skills, build upon the business and accounting associate in applied science degree programs at North Seattle College, and provide accounting content needed for success in the occupation and in preparation for Certified Public Accountant (CPA) licensure. This proposed degree would be North Seattle College’s fifth applied baccalaureate degree.

3c) Shoreline Community College – BAS in Dental Hygiene

Shoreline Community College proposes a Bachelor of Applied Science degree in Dental Hygiene (BASDH) beginning fall 2020. The degree will help transition students in the associate in applied arts and sciences degree in dental hygiene to the BASDH program. It will reflect the academic standards and credit requirements of the current program, while addressing evolving industry standards for the current workforce needs and increasing job marketability for graduates. BASDH graduates will also be qualified for jobs in areas outside of the typical dental practice such as public health, education, research, leadership, practice management, advocacy, and other dental health and business-related fields. This proposed degree would be Shoreline Community College’s first applied baccalaureate degree.

TAB 6

Potential questions

• Does the college proposal for applied baccalaureate degree meet the vision, mission and goals of their respective college?

• Does the proposed applied baccalaureate degree serve the current and future needs of the colleges’ region and the state?

• Does the proposed applied baccalaureate degree support the State Board for Community and Technical College priorities?

Recommendation/preferred result Staff will provide a brief overview of the applied baccalaureate degree proposals. Board members will have an opportunity to discuss the applied baccalaureate proposals with college representatives in the context of meeting college and system goals.


Prepared by: Nate Humphrey, workforce education director


TAB 6

Attachment A

Applied Baccalaureate Degree Status -May 2019

College BUSINESS/MANAGEMENT Status Outcomes Through Fall 2018

Projected Cohort Size Yr1/Yr5

Annual FTE 2017-18

Bellevue Applied Accounting Began fall 2015 18 graduates 14/52 FTE 52.6

Bellevue Applied Business Management Intent expressed n/a n/a

Bellevue Digital Marketing Began 2017 n/a 15 FTE 21.4

Bellevue Project Management Intent expressed n/a n/a

Bellingham Operations Management Began fall 2016 2 graduates 25/57 FTE 11.8

Centralia Applied Management Began 2012 124 graduates 30/62 FTE 62.8

Clark Applied Management Began fall 2016 10 graduates 33/99 FTE 41.2

Clover Park Facility Management Intent expressed n/a n/a

Clover Park Operations Management (formerly Manufacturing Operations) Began 2014 15 graduates 25/50 FTE 23.3

Clover Park Retail Management Intent expressed n/a n/a

Columbia Basin Applied Management Began 2009 317 graduates 35 FTE 87.2

Columbia Basin Project Management Began 2013 155 graduates 40 FTE 104.7 Everett, Big Bend, Clover Park, South Seattle, Spokane

Aviation Maintenance Management Intent expressed n/a n/a

Grays Harbor Organizational Management Began fall 2016 10 graduates 25 FTE 13.1

Green River Applied Management Beginning fall 2018 n/a 24/48 FTE n/a

Green River Marketing and Entrepreneurship Began winter 2015 72 graduates 48/72 FTE 82.5

Highline Global Trade and Logistics Began 2014 13 graduates 10/15 FTE 40

TAB 6

Lake Washington Applied Business – Human Resources Intent expressed n/a n/a

Lake Washington Transportation, Logistics, & Supply Chain Management (formerly Transportation and Logistics Management) Began 2014 25 graduates 25/50 FTE 32.6

Lake Washington Applied Management – Entrepreneurship Board review October 2018 n/a 15 FTE n/a

Olympic Organizational Leadership & Technical Management Began fall 2015 44 graduates 20 FTE 43.8

Peninsula Applied Management Began 2007 187 graduates 20/40 FTE 48.8

Pierce College Applied Business Management Beginning fall 2019 n/a 20/30 FTE n/a

Seattle North Accounting with International Accounting 30-day review n/a 17/42 FTE n/a

Seattle North International Business Began 2013 58 graduates 50 FTE 52.5

Seattle North Residential and Commercial Property Management Began fall 2017 n/a 20 FTE 0

Seattle South Hospitality Management Began 2007 216 graduates 20 FTE 40.5

Seattle South Workforce and Trades Leadership Began fall 2017 n/a 20 FTE 0

Skagit Valley Applied Management Beginning fall 2018 n/a 15/35 FTE n/a

Spokane Falls Applied Management Began fall 2016 9 graduates 20 FTE 38.2

Tacoma Applied Management Beginning fall 2019 2 graduates 15/35 FTE n/a

Walla Walla Applied Management & Entrepreneurship Beginning fall 2018 n/a 12/30 FTE n/a

Whatcom Applied Business Management Board review October 2018 n/a 18/30 FTE n/a

Yakima Valley Applied Business Management Began 2014 83 graduates 28/60 FTE 59.3

College ENVIRONMENT, NATURAL RESOURCES, & OTHER STEM Status

Outcomes Through Fall 2018

Projected Cohort Size

Annual FTE 2017-18

Bellevue Molecular Biosciences (STEM) Began fall 2016 7 graduates 9/31 FTE 11.2

Bellingham Engineering Technology Began fall 2016 n/a 15 FTE 0

Cascadia Sustainable Practices (STEM) Began fall 2015 27 graduates 66 FTE 26.3

Centralia Diesel Technology Began fall 2014 14 graduates 24/53 FTE 26.3

TAB 6

Columbia Basin Engineering Technology Intent expressed n/a n/a

Columbia Basin Nuclear Technology Intent expressed n/a n/a

Edmonds Advanced Materials and Manufacturing 30-day review n/a 15 FTE n/a

Green River Aeronautical Science Began spring 2016 19 graduates 20/40 FTE 33.5

Green River and Grays Harbor (Joint) Forest Resource Management Began winter

2016 9 graduates 48 FTE 34.8

Lake Washington Early Childhood Education Beginning fall 2018 n/a 24 FTE n/a

Seattle South Sustainable Building Science Technology Began fall 2014 28 graduates 20 FTE 22.3

Skagit Valley Environmental Conservation Began fall 2014 22 graduates 20 FTE 17.3

Walla Walla Agriculture Systems (formerly Sustainable Agriculture Systems)

Beginning fall 2018 n/a 12/30 FTE n/a

Wenatchee Valley Engineering Technology Began fall 2016 n/a 15 FTE 7.2

College HEALTH CARE/WELLNESS/SAFETY Status Outcomes Through Fall 2018


Annual FTE 2017-18

Bates Fire Safety Administration Intent expressed n/a

Bellevue Health and Wellness (formerly Health Promotion and Management)

Began fall 2016 6 graduates 15/30 FTE 16.8

Bellevue Healthcare Management and Leadership Began fall 2016 34 graduates 34/60 FTE 46.9

Bellevue Nursing RN-B Began 2012 74 graduates 20/30 FTE 20.9

Bellevue Radiation and Imaging Sciences Began 2007 122 graduates 20 FTE 22.9

Clark Dental Hygiene Began summer 2015 75 graduates 17/53 FTE 64.6

Clark Human Services Beginning fall 2018 n/a 20/50 FTE n/a

Columbia Basin Criminal Justice Intent expressed n/a n/a

Columbia Basin Dental Hygiene Began fall 2017 n/a 18 FTE 13.9

Columbia Basin Health Care Administration Intent expressed n/a n/a

TAB 6

Columbia Basin Nursing RN-B Began fall 2016 17 graduates 18/36 FTE 18.3

Edmonds Child, Youth, and Family Studies Began spring 2017 n/a 20-25 FTE 13.9

Green River Nursing LPN-BSN Intent expressed n/a n/a

Highline Behavioral Science - Youth Development Began fall 2014 26 graduates 15 FTE 45.1

Highline Respiratory Care Began fall 2014 15 graduates 15 FTE 7.2

Lake Washington Behavioral Healthcare Began fall 2017 n/a 15 FTE 0

Lake Washington Dental Hygiene Began summer 2017 30 graduates 30/60 FTE 89.5

Lake Washington Funeral Science Education Began fall 2017 n/a 15 FTE 0

Lake Washington Nursing BSN Began fall 2017 n/a 24/96 FTE 0?

Lake Washington Public Health Administration Began fall 2014 37 graduates 35 FTE 21.3

Olympic Nursing RN-B Began fall 2007 244 graduates 70 FTE 24.5

Pierce Homeland Security-Emergency Management Began winter 2017 3 graduates 20/30 FTE 22.7

Pierce Fire Services Leadership and Management (formerly Fire Command Administration)

Board review October 2018 n/a 12/25 FTE n/a

Pierce-Ft. Steilacoom Dental Hygiene Began fall 2016 29 graduates 20/40 FTE 52

Seattle Central Allied Health Science Began fall 2014 135 graduates 30/179 FTE 129

Seattle Central Behavioral Sciences Began fall 2009 167graduates 20/40 FTE 56.6

Seattle Central Nursing RN-B Beginning fall 2020 n/a 18/60 FTE n/a

Shoreline Dental Hygiene 30-day review n/a 48 FTE n/a

Spokane Respiratory Care Began fall 2017 n/a 20 FTE 21.5

Spokane Falls Fitness and Lifestyle Management Intent expressed n/a n/a

Tacoma Community Health Began spring 2018 n/a 12 FTE 1.1

TAB 6

Tacoma Health Information Management Began fall 2016 2 graduates 15/30 FTE 15.7

Wenatchee Valley Nursing RN-B Began 2017 19 graduates 25/38 FTE 21.3

Yakima Valley Dental Hygiene Began fall 2016 64 graduates 18/24 FTE 48.4

College INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Status Outcomes Through Fall 2018


Annual FTE 2017-18

Bellevue Computer Science (BS) Began winter 2017 3 graduates 60 FTE 27.6

Bellevue Data Analytics Began fall 2014 34 graduates 20 FTE 40.7

Bellevue Digital Media Arts Intent expressed n/a n/a

Bellevue Healthcare Informatics (formerly Healthcare Technology and Management) Began 2011 54 graduates 30/61 FTE 20.1

Bellevue Information Systems and Technology Began fall 2013 88 graduates 50 FTE 99

Bellevue Robotics and Artificial Intelligence Board review October 2018 n/a 8/20 FTE n/a

Cascadia Information Technology: Application Development Beginning fall 2018 n/a 18 FTE n/a

Centralia Information Technology: Application Development Began fall 2016 10 graduates 20 FTE 28.3

Centralia Information Technology: IT Networking Intent expressed n/a n/a

Clark College Cybersecurity Beginning fall 2020 n/a 20 FTE n/a

Clover Park Computer Integrated Manufacturing Intent expressed n/a n/a

Clover Park Cybersecurity Board review October 2018 n/a 20 FTE n/a

Columbia Basin Cyber Security Began winter 2013 86 graduates 40 FTE 87.6

Columbia Basin Information Technology Began fall 2017 n/a 20 FTE 5.1

Edmonds Information Technology: Application Development Board review October 2018 n/a 25 FTE n/a

Green River Information Technology: Network Administration and Security

Began fall 2013 122 graduates 48 FTE 149.1

TAB 6

Green River Information Technology: Software Development (STEM) Began fall 2014 79 graduates 48 FTE 93.4

Highline Cyber Security and Forensics Began winter 2014 34 graduates 15 FTE 78.3

Highline Integrated Design Beginning fall 2019 n/a 12 FTE n/a

Lake Washington Design (name change) Began 2009 140 graduates 22 FTE 33.6

Lake Washington Digital Gaming and Interactive Media Began fall 2017 n/a 20/40 FTE 12.7

Lake Washington Information Technology: Application Development-Software Development

Began winter 2017 n/a 25 FTE 8.2

Olympic Digital Filmmaking Began fall 2017 n/a 15 FTE 15.6

Olympic Information Systems (STEM) Began fall 2014 36 graduates 20 FTE 25.8

Renton Application Development (STEM) Began winter 2015 26 graduates 20 FTE 42.8

Renton Information Technology: Computer Network Architecture Began winter 2018 n/a 10 FTE 3.8

Seattle Central Information Technology: Networking Began fall 2016 5 graduates 20 FTE 12.6

Seattle North Application Development Began fall 2014 56 graduates 20 FTE 76.2

Spokane Falls Cyber Security Began fall 2017 n/a 15/35 FTE 8.9

Spokane Falls Information Systems & Technology Began winter 2016 13 graduates 15 FTE 15.5

Tacoma Information Technology: Information Systems and Technology

Board review October 2018 n/a 20 FTE n/a

Wenatchee Valley Data Analytics Board review October 2018 n/a 15 FTE n/a

Whatcom Information Technology: Networking Began fall 2017 n/a 15 FTE 14.1

Yakima Valley Information Technology: Networking Began fall 2015 10 graduates 12 FTE 25.5

College EDUCATION Status Outcomes Through Fall 2018


Annual FTE 2017-18

Centralia Teacher Education Began fall 2017 n/a 15 FTE 49.4

TAB 6

Columbia Basin Teacher Education * Beginning fall 2019 n/a 20/50 FTE n/a

Grays Harbor Teacher Education Began fall 2017 n/a 15 FTE 31.8

Green River Early Childhood Education: Infant and Child Mental Health

Began fall 2018 n/a 25/50 FTE n/a

Highline Teaching and Early Learning * Began fall 2017 n/a 15 FTE 25.6

Lake Washington Early Childhood Education Began fall 2018 n/a 24 FTE n/a

Lower Columbia Teacher Education* Beginning fall 2019 n/a 24/48 FTE n/a

Pierce Teaching * Began winter 2017 9 graduates 15/48 FTE 46.6

Seattle North Early Childhood Education Began fall 2016 36 graduates 20/50 FTE 65.2

Seattle South Professional Technical Education and Instructional Design

Began fall 2012 43 graduates 12/20 FTE 9

Wenatchee Valley Teaching* Beginning fall 2019 n/a 15 FTE n/a

Yakima Valley Teacher Education * Began fall 2018 n/a 25 FTE n/a

*Includes teacher certification

College OTHER Status Outcomes Through Fall 2018


Annual FTE 2017-18

Bellevue Interior Design Began fall 2009 289 graduates 44/83 FTE 66

Clover Park Interior Design Beginning fall 2019 n/a 12 FTE n/a

Green River Realtime Reporting: Court Reporting and Captioning Beginning fall 2019 n/a 25/50 FTE n/a

Lake Washington Applied Art: Illustration Intent expressed n/a n/a

Total 3,756 graduates 3,142 FTEs

TAB 7

1

REGULAR ITEM (RESOLUTIONS 19-05-19 – 19-05-22) May 2, 2019

Tab 7

Applied baccalaureate degree proposals Brief Description

In September 2014, the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges adopted a revised approval process, selection criteria, and application materials for community and technical colleges seeking to offer an applied baccalaureate program. The final step in the approval process requires State Board action on the college’s application to offer the proposed applied baccalaureate degree.


State Board goals are “designed to raise education attainment, open more doors to education–particularly for our fast-growing adult population–and build upon our tradition of excellence.” Colleges offering applied baccalaureate degrees meet the needs of changing economies by increasing the number of skilled employees in the areas of greatest need. Through this, colleges create greater access to higher education by enrolling underserved populations, particularly place-bound working adults and ensure community and technical colleges are affordable and accessible for students. The following three goals are addressed through the approval process of applied baccalaureate degree programs:

• Promoting student achievement and success by increasing the number of applied baccalaureate degrees conferred.

• Increasing access to post-secondary education by enrolling more underrepresented, first generation and adult students, active military, veterans and their dependents and develop means to attract former students needing credits for degrees, certificates, or credentials.

• Building on the system’s strength and successes by ensuring balance among mission areas: basic skills, workforce, transfer and applied baccalaureate.

Background information and analysis

6a) Edmonds Community College – BAS in Information Technology: Application Development

Edmonds Community College proposes a Bachelor of Applied Science in Information Technology: Application Development beginning fall 2019. The proposed degree will provide Snohomish and North King County residents with the expertise and academic credentials to be competitive in the regional labor market and build off of the college’s professional technical associate degrees in Computer Information Systems—Web Application and Cloud Developer. Program outcomes include but are not limited to: identifying, evaluating, and creating appropriate software using pertinent algorithms and data structures for the needs of a given enterprise system environment, demonstrating an understanding of software lifecycle, utilizing data analytics to solve complex problems with software development, and combining a foundation of software developer knowledge with soft skills and teamwork to excel in the field of information technology. This proposed degree would be Edmonds Community College’s second applied baccalaureate degree.

TAB 7

2

6b) Pierce College – BAS in Fire Services Leadership and Management

Pierce College proposes a Bachelor of Applied Science in Fire Services Leadership and Management degree beginning fall 2019. Building off the college’s associate in applied science degrees in Fire Command Administration and Homeland Security and Emergency Management, the degree will be designed to support the goals and objectives of the U.S. Fire Administration and FEMA to provide fire service professionals with the knowledge and skills they need to progress on their career pathway into supervisory, management, and administrative positions while meeting the succession planning needs of the sector. At the bachelor’s degree level, the industry focus shifts to operations and risk management where advanced training in the increasingly important concepts and contextual studies of leadership, organizational analysis, strategic thinking, risk management, and public policy become paramount. This proposed degree would be Pierce College’s third applied baccalaureate degree.

6c) Wenatchee Valley College – BAS in Data Analytics

Wenatchee Valley College proposes a Bachelor of Applied Science in Data Analytics degree beginning fall 2019. After consulting with regional industry partners, neighboring higher education partners, and surveying employers, the college determined that adding a Baccalaureate of Applied Science in Data Analytics (BAS-DA) was essential to serve the educational and workforce needs of the region. As an emerging field, data analytics refers to collecting, identifying, and interpreting both qualitative and quantitative data. This data can be used to inform industry related to productivity, or other business decisions, and also inform researchers to prove or disprove theories and hypotheses. Information systems, applied statistics, management science, data analysis, and computer technology will all be key components of the proposed degree. This proposed degree would be Wenatchee Valley College’s third applied baccalaureate degree.

6d Whatcom Community College – BAS in Applied Business Management

Whatcom Community College proposes a Bachelor of Applied Science in Applied Business Management degree beginning fall 2019. Building off Whatcom Community College’s current associate of science degree in Business Administration, the proposed applied baccalaureate degree prepares students for the workforce needs of a variety of growing small to medium-sized businesses which make up the majority of Whatcom County’s employer community. The degree will also serve budding entrepreneurs who wish to stay and grow their businesses in the local region. Graduates will demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of issues related to human resources; exhibit analytical and critical thinking skills applicable to management of a business or industry; utilize technology and computer software applications needed to function in today’s highly technological business environment; and employ an understanding of financial, accounting, and statistical applications needed to make and evaluate decisions. This proposed degree would be Whatcom Community College’s second applied baccalaureate degree.

Potential questions

• Do these degrees meet criteria established by the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges?

TAB 7

3

Recommendation/preferred result These proposals meet criteria established by statute and board policy based on staff review and feedback from peer reviewers from the community and technical college system. Staff recommends State Board action on the following:

• Resolution 19-05-19 approving Edmonds Community College’s Bachelor of Applied Science in Information

Technology: Application Development

• Resolution 19-05-20 approving Pierce College’s Bachelor of Applied Science in Fire Services Leadership and Management

• Resolution 19-05-21 approving Wenatchee Valley College’s Bachelor of Applied Science in Data Analytics

• Resolution 19-05-22 approving Whatcom Community College’s Bachelor of Applied Science in Applied Business Management

Policy Manual change Yes ☐ No ☒

Prepared by: Nate Humphrey, workforce education director


TAB 7

4


RESOLUTION 19-05-19

A resolution to approve Edmonds Community College’s application to offer a Bachelor of Applied Science in Information Technology: Application Development degree upon recommendation of the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges staff. WHEREAS, Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 2483, passed by the 2012 Washington State Legislature, authorizes the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges to approve all applied bachelor’s degree programs offered by community and technical colleges; and WHEREAS, consistent with the Washington State Legislature’s requirement, the State Board developed objective criteria for the approval of community and technical college applied bachelor’s degrees; and WHEREAS, the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges staff found that Edmonds Community College’s application provided evidence that met or exceeded all objective selection criteria and will expand bachelor degree capacity in the state; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges approves the recommendation to authorize Edmonds Community College’s Bachelor of Applied Science in Information Technology: Application Development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges authorizes the Executive Director to make adjustments to this action, including any necessary changes to the State Board’s Policy Manual, as necessary, for actions taken by the Governor, Legislature, data corrections, externally imposed restrictions or guidelines, uniform accounting and reporting requirements, and unanticipated changes in state or federal law.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED on May 2, 2019

Attest



TAB 7

5


RESOLUTION 19-05-20

A resolution to approve Pierce College’s application to offer a Bachelor of Applied Science in Fire Services Leadership and Management degree upon recommendation of the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges staff. WHEREAS, Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 2483, passed by the 2012 Washington State Legislature, authorizes the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges to approve all applied bachelor’s degree programs offered by community and technical colleges; and WHEREAS, consistent with the Washington State Legislature’s requirement, the State Board developed objective criteria for the approval of community and technical college applied bachelor’s degrees; and WHEREAS, the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges staff found that Pierce College’s application provided evidence that met or exceeded all objective selection criteria and will expand bachelor degree capacity in the state; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges approves the recommendation to authorize Pierce College’s Bachelor of Applied Science Fire Services Leadership and Management. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges authorizes the Executive Director to make adjustments to this action, including any necessary changes to the State Board’s Policy Manual, as necessary, for actions taken by the Governor, Legislature, data corrections, externally imposed restrictions or guidelines, uniform accounting and reporting requirements, and unanticipated changes in state or federal law. APPROVED AND ADOPTED on May 2, 2019

Attest



TAB 7

6


RESOLUTION 19-05-21

A resolution to approve Wenatchee Valley College’s application to offer a Bachelor of Applied Science in Data Analytics degree upon recommendation of the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges staff. WHEREAS, Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 2483, passed by the 2012 Washington State Legislature, authorizes the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges to approve all applied bachelor’s degree programs offered by community and technical colleges; and WHEREAS, consistent with the Washington State Legislature’s requirement, the State Board developed objective criteria for the approval of community and technical college applied bachelor’s degrees; and WHEREAS, the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges staff found that Wenatchee Valley College’s application provided evidence that met or exceeded all objective selection criteria and will expand bachelor degree capacity in the state; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges approves the recommendation to authorize Wenatchee Valley College’s Bachelor of Applied Science in Data Analytics. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges authorizes the Executive Director to make adjustments to this action, including any necessary changes to the State Board’s Policy Manual, as necessary, for actions taken by the Governor, Legislature, data corrections, externally imposed restrictions or guidelines, uniform accounting and reporting requirements, and unanticipated changes in state or federal law.


Attest



TAB 7

7


RESOLUTION 19-05-22

A resolution to approve Whatcom Community College’s application to offer a Bachelor of Applied Science in Applied Business Management degree upon recommendation of the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges staff. WHEREAS, Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 2483, passed by the 2012 Washington State Legislature, authorizes the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges to approve all applied bachelor’s degree programs offered by community and technical colleges; and WHEREAS, consistent with the Washington State Legislature’s requirement, the State Board developed objective criteria for the approval of community and technical college applied bachelor’s degrees; and WHEREAS, the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges staff found that Whatcom Community College’s application provided evidence that met or exceeded all objective selection criteria and will expand bachelor degree capacity in the state; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges approves the recommendation to authorize Whatcom Community College’s Bachelor of Applied Science in Applied Business Management. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges authorizes the Executive Director to make adjustments to this action, including any necessary changes to the State Board’s Policy Manual, as necessary, for actions taken by the Governor, Legislature, data corrections, externally imposed restrictions or guidelines, uniform accounting and reporting requirements, and unanticipated changes in state or federal law.


Attest



TAB 8

REGULAR ITEM (RESOLUTIONS 19-05-23) May 2, 2019

Tab 8

Best employment practices for part-time faculty

Brief Description On March 23, 2017 the State Board adopted Resolution 17-03-22, intending to improve student outcomes through continued support of the best practice principles for the employment of part-time/adjunct faculty. The resolution stated, in part, “. . . the State Board shall convene and facilitate a workgroup that includes faculty, faculty union representatives and college administrators to draft collective bargaining language reflecting the best practice principles that local bargainers may use in their negotiations.”

The workgroup, established by the resolution, identified a gap in the “best practice principles” and is recommending that an additional principle addressing diversity, equity and inclusion be added.

In this item, the State Board will be asked to act upon that recommendation.


Improving salaries and working conditions helps retain and attract the talent needed to improve outcomes for students, businesses and our state economy. This investment in resources provides a learning environment that meets the education needs of our students and provides a workforce that addresses employment trends in our business communities.

The increased focus on equity and inclusion helps diversify staff, leading to more success for students of color.

Background information and analysis Working with stakeholder groups, the workgroup called for in the resolution was established in July 2017. It conducted its first meeting in August 2017, and continued to meet approximately monthly through October 2018.

The workgroup reviewed language in faculty collective bargaining agreements to compile a library of existing contract language specific to each of the ten principles identified in the resolution. The resulting report retains these principles and adds an eleventh related to equity, diversity, and inclusion.

Continued progress on implementation of the best practices will primarily occur through local bargaining. These examples are offered as references or starting points for local labor and management bargainers.

A five-member panel representing college administrators, AFT and WEA presented the 2019 “Best Employment Practices for Part-Time Faculty” report to the State Board during a study session

TAB 8

conducted on March 27, 2019. As directed in Resolution 17-03-22, the workgroup compiled a library of existing contract language considered best employment practices specific to the ten principles.

This report also proposed an eleventh principle specific to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI), which supports the commitment championed by the State Board, and the presidents and chancellors of Washington’s 34 community and technical colleges to mitigate barriers to equity in Washington community and technical colleges. The recommended new principle is copied below and is inserted as the tenth principle in the newly proposed resolution:

Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion. The Washington Community and Technical Colleges are committed to advancing inclusive excellence by promoting equitable policies and practices to dismantle systemic barriers created by oppression, power, and privilege in order to build and sustain institutions that ensure students’ success and honor the unique identity and lived experiences of our diverse community.

Potential questions • What is the State Board’s role in encouraging college districts to use the best practice report

in decisions effecting part-time faculty?

Recommendation/preferred result The report provided in March 2019 provided Board members with a better understanding of employment issues related to part-time faculty.

The Best Practices workgroup has completed their assignment and is requesting adoption of Resolution 19-05-23. Policy Manual change Yes ☐ No ☒

Prepared by: Ed McCallister, human resource director


TAB 8


RESOLUTION 19-05-23

A resolution relating to improving outcomes through continued support of the best practice principles affecting the employment of part-time/adjunct faculty.

WHEREAS, two-year colleges are vital to the state’s economy and provide an open door to higher education for thousands of students across the state; and

WHEREAS, the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges established a system goal of having a first class faculty and staff and providing fair compensation and working conditions for both full- and part-time instructors, whose contributions are critical to the quality and breadth of the colleges’ educational programs; and

WHEREAS, the State Board has recognized the impact of reliance upon adjunct faculty on student achievement and committed to increasing the ratio of classes taught by full-time faculty by requesting funding for and supporting legislation converting adjunct positions full time; and

WHEREAS, there remains room for improvement in adjunct faculty employment conditions in the areas addressed by the principles, including salary, reliance on adjunct faculty and processes for hiring, and evaluating and job security; and

WHEREAS, respecting an increasingly diverse and complex student body requires a commitment to recruit and retain diverse faculty and staff who need to see themselves in those who inspire them; and

WHEREAS, the State Board has previously studied this issue and adopted resolutions supporting implementation of the ten best practice principles related to adjunct faculty employment;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the State Board re-commits to and continues its support for the Best Practice Principles as adopted in previous resolutions and adds an eleventh principle to address Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.

1. Salary. Part-time/adjunct faculty should be paid a rate equal to that paid full-time faculty having the same qualifications and experience for doing the equivalent instructional and non-instructional work.

2. Benefits Participation. Eligible part-time/adjunct faculty should receive all state mandated benefits and college provided employee benefits, proportionate to those received by full-time faculty.

3. Faculty Mix. The ratio of full- and part-time faculty at each college district should be based upon program and student need. The funding necessary to improve services to students through increasing courses taught by full-time faculty should be provided by the Legislature.

4. Initial Recruitment and Selection. Part-time faculty should be selected and retained through a structured professional interview process that is based on the same or similar criteria as applied to full-time faculty.

TAB 8

5. Job Security. Upon successfully completing a review period, regularly employed part-time/adjunct faculty should achieve a form of job security.

6. Performance Review. Part-time faculty should be evaluated using comparable criteria, standards and procedures which are applied to evaluate full-time faculty.

7. Professional Development. Colleges should assist part-time faculty to identify and address their development needs in ways which are accessible and affordable.

8. Support Services – Professionalism. Part-time faculty should be treated with the same professional as full-time faculty and provided the necessary support services to do their jobs.

9. Communications. Part-time/adjunct faculty should be afforded easy access to communications from the college and have the means to communicate with the college community.

10. Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion. The Washington Community and Technical Colleges are committed to advancing inclusive excellence by promoting equitable policies and practices to dismantle systemic barriers created by oppression, power, and privilege in order to build and sustain institutions that ensure students’ success and honor the unique identity and lived experiences of our diverse community.

11. Best Practices Report. The best practice principles should be used in making state and local decisions and agreements affecting part-time faculty. The “Part-Time Faculty Best Practices Report” will be published and distributed to all college presidents, human resources directors, trustees, and local faculty union presidents. At least annually, each college should conduct a review of their actions related to achievement of these best practices.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED on May 2, 2019.

Attest



TAB 9

1

REGULAR ITEM (RESOLUTION 19-05-24) May 2, 2019

Tab 9

Seattle Central College air rights lease for student housing

Brief Description

Seattle Colleges District is seeking approval to lease property rights to a non-profit for construction, maintenance, and operation of student housing on the Seattle Central College campus.

How does this item link to the State Board’s 2018-19 priorities? Providing student housing is consistent with the State Board’s goal to advocate for resources that support college enrollment.

Background information and analysis At the State Board’s March 27, 2019 meeting, Seattle Central College presented their plan to have a non-profit entity construct student housing above their existing parking garage at 1609 Harvard Avenue.

The plan is for the college to condo minimize the property to separate the existing parking garage from the air space above it. Certain improvements will also be made to the existing structure to accommodate the development above. As owner of all community and technical college property, the State Board will own both condominium units (the parking garage and the air space above it) and will authorize a lease of the air rights to the non-profit for a term not to exceed 35 years. The college will enter into a public-private partnership with a non-profit corporation that will obtain financing and contract with a developer to build the facility. The developer will pay prevailing wages for the construction of the facility even though the construction is not public work. The non-profit will then maintain and operate the facility for the term of the financing. This arrangement does not constitute financing by the state.

On February 20, 2018, the Seattle Colleges’ Board of Trustees requested the State Board approve a real property lease to support this plan.

The following summarizes the request relative to the in Chapter 6 Appendix D of its policy manual:

• Appropriateness of the facility or activity, its uses and its users, for the requesting college. Increasing the availability of housing for students supports the role, mission and purpose of the community and technical college system and the local college by increasing enrollment, retention and completion. On-campus housing supports three primary goals in each college's master plan: student success; equity, diversity and inclusion; and organizational excellence. Building student housing above the parking garage is part of the 2018 update to the college’s Major Institution Master Plan and makes efficient use of scarce land on the main campus. The housing will be offered first to Seattle Central students and then students at other colleges. The college’s feasibility study has demonstrated the need and viability of the project.

2

• Appropriateness of the proposed facility or activity for the community. The community’s need for more housing would be addressed by providing housing for students. The college has presented the plans for on-campus student housing to its Standing Advisory Committee for the Major Institution Master Plan, as well as with the local chamber of commerce and business, Capitol Hill Eco district and other community groups. The proposal has received universal support.

• The benefits and obligations of the college (the state) under this proposal. The annual cost of providing services to the students related to the proposals will be identified and dedicated by the college from local resources. The college will have limited control over the operation or the improvements for the term of the air rights lease while its partner will provide the housing primarily to students enrolled in the college that are between 18-24 years of age.

The facility will be operated by a private property management specializing in on-campus student housing. The management will include an annual maintenance budget and reserves for major capital repairs and replacement in the future. Upon the expiration of the air rights lease the improvements will, by operation of law, become the property of the State Board.

The development will comply with city of Seattle Building Code; design and quality standards of modern market-rate apartments.

• Requirements for facilities constructed on state owned property by an entity other than the college for subsequent donation to or for use by the college. The college will establish the program specifications of the facility. All liability for design and construction rests with the non-profit corporation and its contracted developer and development team. Prevailing wage rates will be paid for the construction labor. The developer will require a payment and performance bond of the General Contractor and all subcontractors. All design professionals and contractors will be required to carry errors and omissions insurance policies with the college as a named beneficiary.

The condominium declaration will give the housing project the right to construct the piers and shear walls which penetrate into the lower garage unit. Those improvements will be integral to the housing project and will provide an ancillary benefit to the garage unit (i.e. bringing it up to the current seismic code requirements). The seismic improvements to the garage constitute a prepayment of ground lease rent from the nonprofit corporation to the college with the effect of extending the useful life of the garage. The State Board will retain ownership of the garage as a separate unit under the condominium declaration.

• Financial or programmatic advantages that would be gained by the college and state. The college used a national request for proposals to gather qualifications and select a development partner. The college also used national request for proposals to select a student housing demand consultant, as well as independent construction and owner's representative to validate the cost estimate and proposed timeline. The college retained a seismic engineering and design firm to validate garage load bearing capacity.

In addition to the student benefit of more housing options, the college will receive the income from the student housing net of operating and repair costs and necessary reserves. This income will allow the college to pursue other program and capital plans. The parking garage will continue to be available to college students and staff as it is today.

During the college March presentation of the plan, the State Board had several questions and some required additional preparation by the college to answer.

3

• Will there be a third-party review of the financials including the college financial benefit, tenant mix and market rates? The college contracted with a third-party to review the pro forma, development proposal and student housing demand study including information on unit mix, floor plans, pricing and project timeline from the developer. The review compared the project to industry norms and provide an independent evaluation of the pro forma and the financial model. See attachment A.

• What assurance do we have that the partner, or its role, will continue for the term of the lease? The proposed air rights lease requires prevailing wage to be paid for construction and payment and performance bonds be obtained for the general contractor and select subcontractors. The non-profit’s failure to properly fulfill its obligations will constitute a default under the air rights lease. The transaction structure creates significant disincentives for, and protections against, such a default. See attachment B.

• What is the plan for improvements to the garage? The improvements to the garage will be paid for by the non-profit corporation and were estimated in 2018 to cost $13 million. The condominium declaration will assign to the upper unit (i.e. the student housing project) the air columns needed to install piers and shear walls to support the housing. Construction of the piers and shear walls will be bid as part of the development of the housing project and will be the responsibility of the developer, not the college.

• How will the property be divided so we can keep the parking garage and the developer can get a lease for the air rights? With the help of a special attorney general for real estate, the college has a plan to condo minimize the property. This is also described in attachment B.

In attachment C, the college’s attorney general has provided an opinion that the project is not public work. The Treasurer’s office has said the plan does not constitute state financing and they will review the final proposed ground lease and related documents before they are signed.

Potential questions Is the air rights lease and resultant student housing consistent with the State Board’s goal to advocate for resources that support college enrollment?

Recommendation/preferred result Staff recommends approval of Resolution 19-05-24 giving the State Board’s executive director the authority to enter into an air rights lease with a term not to exceed 35 years on behalf of the Seattle Central College with a non-profit corporation for the development of student housing above the parking garage at 1609 Harvard Avenue on the Seattle Central College campus, subject to review of the documents by the State Treasurer’s office to verify they do not constitute state financing.




TAB 9 Attachment A

4

Seattle Central College Student Housing Initial Findings Memorandum DATE: April 17, 2019 FROM: Ann Volz, Project Executive, Advisory Services Ted Risher, Project Executive, Advisory Services

Pete Hofman, Project Analyst, Advisory Services The Scion Group TO: Lincoln Ferris, Consultant to the College Background

Scion was engaged by Mr. Ferris on April 11, 2019 to provide a professional opinion on the feasibility of a proposed student housing project currently being planned at Seattle Central College (the “College”) in partnership with Hanover Pacific LLC (the “Developer”). In the intervening time since Scion’s official engagement, we have solicited and received project information from Mr. Ferris and the Developer to assist us in the determination for which we were tasked. What follows is a high-level summary of our findings to date and recommendations for proceeding to a formal determination by the date of the next Seattle Colleges District Board of Trustees meeting on May 2, 2019.

Findings to Date

Scion has conducted a high-level review of the materials provided by Mr. Ferris and the Developer. These materials include building plans, engineering reports, garage costing estimates, a bond underwriting synopsis, the Housing Feasibility Study, a Power Point summary dated November 29, 2018 of pre-development research, and a project pro forma that was provided to the Developer by an underwriter with whom it periodically conducts business. To inform an objective analysis, Scion placed Developer assumptions garnered from these materials into its own proprietary model to conduct sensitivity analyses and identify potential areas of strengths and weakness.

In general, with the information provided so far, Scion has determined that a viable project is achievable given the assumptions provided by the Developer. Rents and revenue appear conservative; although, Scion has not contrasted these with competing products in the market area and has not seen a full market study to substantiate this. Operating cost assumptions, which appear to be approximately $3,600/bed/year are on the high end for similar projects Scion has worked on over the course of the past year. Financing assumptions seem in line with Scion’s benchmarks. The 30-year bond amortization period could potentially be lengthened to achieve the necessary debt service coverage requirements (usually a 1.20 in the 2nd year after unutilized capitalized interest funds are returned to the College) and/or lower rents. In its current state, Scion’s model produces adequate coverage for the bonds. Scion needs more information to confirm the validity of these findings, but its initial feedback is that the project is feasible.

Additional Required Data

Scion needs to see a more complete development pro forma from the Developer that combines all assumptions regarding capital cost, financing terms, timing, and cash flow projections to make a final determination. Primarily we need a cost estimate for the entire project from the Developer’s general contractor or a qualified cost estimator or construction management company. We understand that the guaranteed maximum price (“GMP”) cost is not available at this time and that project costs are subject to change over the course of the predevelopment period, but

5

this, combined with a more detailed sources and uses from the Developer, is vital to ascertaining whether the conceived $60M+ bond issuance is sufficient to cover all project hard, soft, and financing costs.

Conclusion

Currently Scion believes this project to be feasible but needs more detailed information from the Developer to substantiate this professional opinion. Generally, Scion prefers to make conservative assumptions in its project underwriting to create bulwarks against market fluctuations and unforeseen credit issues. This increases the likelihood that institutional clients like the College will not have to extend guarantees or contingent liabilities to close the project off their balance sheet and in a credit positive manner. As Scion moves forward with this engagement and on to a more detailed report for the Board of Trustees, these are the principles we will adhere to in providing a final evaluation for this development opportunity.

TAB 9 Attachment B

FIKSO KRETSCHMER SMITH DIXON ORMSETH 901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4000, Seattle, WA 98164

6

MEMORANDUM

April 24, 2019

TO: Derek Edwards, Senior Counsel, Education Division Office of the Attorney General of Washington

FROM: Thomas E. Dixon

RE: Summary of Protections Provided Within Air Rights Lease Structure

I have been engaged as a Special Assistant Attorney General because of my transactional real estate expertise. In that role I have been asked to provide the following summary of the protections provided to Seattle Central College under the proposed air rights lease, and within the larger deal structure, for the new 450-unit student housing facility to be constructed above the College’s parking garage on its main Capitol Hill campus.

The current parking garage property will become part of a new two-unit condominium: one unit will consist of the existing parking garage, the other will consist of the air rights above the parking garage. Both units will at all times be owned by the College through the Washington State Board of Community and Technical Colleges. The College will then enter into a long-term lease of the air rights unit (the “Air Rights Lease”) to a 501(c)(3) entity (the “Tenant”). The Tenant will be responsible for constructing the housing facility and operating it after completion.

This condominium ownership structure affords a couple protections to the College. First, the parking garage remains a separate legal parcel and will be unaffected by any financing or mechanics liens related to the new development. Second, the property rights acquired by the Tenant, and the property it will offer as collateral for its construction financing, will consist only of its leasehold interest under the Air Rights Lease. The College’s ownership interest in the air rights unit will never be encumbered by the Tenant’s project financing. Thus in a worst case scenario a lender would foreclose and become the tenant under the Air Rights Lease, but the College’s ownership of the air rights unit would remain unaffected.

The Air Rights Lease is similar to what is commonly known as a ground lease in that the Tenant, as opposed to the landlord, will own the improvements being constructed, in this case the student housing facility. With that structure, the consequences of a Tenant default and resulting lease termination are enormous: not only does the Tenant lose its right to occupy the facility, it loses its ownership of, and entire investment in, the improvements.

With those high stakes, the Tenant is extra-vigilant about complying with the terms of the lease, but so also is the Tenant’s lender (in this case the trustee representing the bondholders). As a result, the Air Rights Lease provides extensive cure rights in favor of the lender to remedy any default by the Tenant, and if necessary to step in as a replacement tenant under the Air Rights Lease. Thus a second wave of security is provided against a Tenant default: if the Tenant doesn’t cure the default itself, the lender is highly motivated to do so. Possible defaults by the Tenant range from the failure to properly construct or operate the housing facility to the filing of bankruptcy.

If, despite those protections, the Air Rights Lease is terminated, the College becomes the owner of the new improvements at no cost, which is not a bad result.

7

The greatest risk for any development project occurs during the construction period. Under the Air Rights Lease the Tenant is solely responsible for all construction obligations. To secure those obligations, the Air Rights Lease requires the Tenant to obtain payment and performance bonds for the project general contractor and selected subcontractors. Each of the Tenant’s lender and, secondarily, the College will receive a collateral assignment of the construction contract and all other construction-related agreements so either may take over the project if the Tenant fails to perform. The lender and the College will be named as additional obligees under the payment and performance bond so they may draw on those bonds if necessary.

Once the project is completed and operating, the College remains involved in reviewing and approving annual budgets and facility operating procedures. The Air Rights Lease also grants the College the right at any time after the 3rd anniversary of substantial completion of the facility to replace the Tenant/operator with a new tenant/operator designated by the College.

The Air Rights Lease provides that any liability of the College thereunder is limited to its interest in the air rights unit, and no recourse is available to any other assets of the College.

We have also been advised that the Tenant will be controlled by a 5-person board of directors. Two of those directors will be selected by the single nonprofit LLC member of the Tenant, two will be selected by the College, and the third will be a local community representative recommended by the College. The College will thus retain a significant influence over the Tenant’s operations.

Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this.

TAB 9 Attachment C

8

TAB 9

10


RESOLUTION 19-05-24

A resolution relating to Seattle Colleges District’s request to lease property rights to a non-profit for construction, maintenance, and operation of student housing on the Seattle Central College campus.

WHEREAS, Seattle Central College students will benefit from more housing options; and

WHEREAS, the Seattle College District will receive the income from the student housing net of operating and repair costs and necessary reserves; and

WHEREAS, the parking garage will continue to be available to college students and staff as it is today; and

WHEREAS, the community around Seattle Central College will benefit from more housing options; and

WHEREAS, the lessor will design the student housing to meet Seattle Central College student needs; and

WHEREAS, the lessor will be responsible for construction, operation and maintenance of the student housing for the term of the lease; and

WHEREAS, construction labor will be paid prevailing wages; and

WHEREAS, upon the expiration of the air rights lease the improvements will, by operation of law, become the property of the State Board; and

WHEREAS, On February 20, 2018, the Seattle Colleges’ Board of Trustees requested the State Board approve a real property lease to support this plan; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges authorizes its executive director to enter into an air rights lease for a term not to exceed 35 years on behalf of the Seattle Central College with a non-profit corporation for the development of student housing above the parking garage at 1609 Harvard Avenue on the Seattle Central College campus, subject to review of the documents by the State Treasurer’s office to verify they do not constitute state financing.



Attest



TAB 10

1

REGULAR ITEM (RESOLUTION 19-05-25) May 2, 2019

Tab 10

Centralia College ground lease for training facility

Brief Description

Centralia College District is seeking approval to lease property rights to the Centralia College Foundation for construction, maintenance, and operation of a training building on Centralia College campus.

How does this item link to the State Board’s 2018-19 priorities? Providing training for pre-apprenticeship, apprenticeship, and the existing workforce is consistent with the State Board’s mission and additional resources are needed to meet the state's post-secondary attainment goals and workforce needs.

Background information and analysis The plan is for the college to lease approximately 0.5 acres on the Centralia College campus to the Centralia College Foundation to construct, maintain and operate a training building. The Foundation has already obtained funding for construction of the facility. The leased ground would be adjacent to the Technical Center of the college, where the college’s diesel and welding programs are currently located. There will be cross training opportunities with the diesel (machine maintenance and operation) and welding (millwright and assembly), where college equipment and faculty can be leveraged in program offerings. The location on the western area of campus allows for delivery of program equipment and supplies with minimal disruption of traditional campus programs. See campus map for proposed location in attachment A.

On April 11, 2019, Centralia College’s Board of Trustees authorized college administration to negotiate this ground lease with the Centralia College Foundation and present it to the State Board for approval to support this plan.

The following summarizes the request relative to the in Chapter 6 Appendix D of its policy manual:

Appropriateness of the facility or activity, its uses and its users, for the requesting college

This ground lease will be for a period of 20 years with Centralia College’s long term partner, the Centralia College Foundation. The foundation’s purpose is to support the mission of Centralia College. The Foundation provides a critical link to the college’s economic development, local employers, and K12 partners in the community. These partners have indicated a need for space to provide on-demand, industry specific training as well as short-term training for potential employers looking to locate to the area. The region also needs a facility for training specific to certificates to fulfill articulated curriculum agreements with local high schools. While the college can meet some of these needs, the Foundation has secured funding that will provide a facility for employers (current and prospective) to provide company-specific training on a schedule not conducive to current college programs and schedules. The outcome will be a facility that is available to be rented by the college, K12 partners, governmental organizations, and the private sector for education and training needs. A

TAB 10

2

rental schedule will be established providing tiers to the college, K12, governmental organizations, and the private sector with the goal of providing overall education and training opportunities for the region.

Local training needs in the trades and pre-apprenticeship areas are not being met, primarily due to a lack of appropriate space. The proposed project will create flexible space and associated infrastructure for training construction, assembly, and machine operation skills. The college currently does not have space available to meet these local needs, nor the resources to construct one.

In addition, The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction has increased efforts to offer Career and Technical Education (CTE) curriculum and the college has articulated many of those courses with its K12 partners. However, the lack of space suitable for construction skills (i.e. framing, plumbing, electrical, machine and equipment operation) is an obstacle to offering training for these trades and pre-apprenticeships. Also, in the past, potential employers to the area have inquired about assembly training, and the need to train hundreds of workers before plant openings. While the college was prepared to assist in the requested training, adequate space was not immediately available.

One of the objectives in the college strategic plan is to expand Workforce Education offerings to include the trades and pre-apprenticeship training. This involves partnerships with K12, current and potential employers, local trade unions and governmental agencies. The proposed ground lease and subsequent construction of a training facility will support this objective by providing a facility with flexible scheduling for the desired training. Located on the campus grounds would also allow for effective leveraging of current faculty and staff needed to deliver the required training and education.

This facility will support flexible scheduling and programming.

Typical of most college campuses, the vast majority of the teaching space at Centralia College is scheduled for short periods daily throughout an academic quarter. This type of scheduling is not conducive to offering all-day training for employers who want their staff to complete training in a block by attending all day instead of spread out over an academic quarter. Certificate training can also be accomplished in a shorter, more condensed time frame which would meet the needs of many worker retraining students. In the event of a large scale employer moving into the area, training can be planned to encompass large blocks of time, making it more attractive to locate into the area.

To support many types of programs, the building will be a commercial style facility, with roll up doors, high walls and ceilings, and several basic classrooms. This will accommodate a wide range of workforce education needs, ranging from robotics, construction trades, first aid/CPR, to equipment maintenance and operation. Combined with the existing college facilities that house diesel, welding and nursing assistant programs, it will be an effective opportunity for instruction.

While the availability for use will be open to rent by a wide range of users, it is anticipated that the majority of training will be either delivered or supported by the college

In preparation for this project, and as part of the foundation grant application, college and foundation staff have met with the K12 partners, local union representatives, representatives of the state Labor Council, Department of Labor and Industries Apprenticeship Programs, and employers to conceptualize how the space will be used. All are in full support of this much needed facility to address local needs.

In addition, the college’s newly approved mission statement identifies “supporting our community” as a strategic core theme. This facility would allow the college to support the community by facilitating partnerships among the Centralia College Foundation, local businesses, K-12 CTE programs, and organized labor. These

TAB 10

3

activities largely fall outside of the for-credit, quarterly schedule model in which the college offers most of its programs.

The college has explored alternative methods to meet these training needs and found the only comparable space on campus houses the diesel and welding programs which are filled to capacity, and using them to meet the needs addressed by this proposal would displace a large number of students.

Appropriateness of the proposed facility or activity for the community

The college is a vital economic development partner linking employers with K12 districts, workforce education and worker retraining programs. The need for skilled workers in the trades and pre-apprenticeship type occupations is a barrier in locating employers with family wage jobs with benefit packages, which in turn stifles the economic advancement of the region.

This proposed facility has received full support from the local K12 districts, which also cannot offer the full range of CTE programs needed for its students. However, combining students from multiple schools will allow for sufficient enrollments to offer a range of courses. In addition, the leaders of the Economic Development Council and the local port districts are in full support of establishing a regional training center in order to attract quality employers to the area.

See attachment B for letters of support from local employers and K12 districts that are in full support of this project. In addition, the Centralia College Foundation Board of Directors, composed of a broad range of community members, felt the impact to the region was important enough that they pledged $200,000 to the project. Finally, the TransAlta Coal Transition Grant Committee, has awarded a $1.3 million grant to the Foundation for this project. Due to these donations, the project will not require any debt by the college or its partners.

The Foundation will assume the risk of operation and provide insurance on the property. Maintenance and utility costs for this facility will depend on use which in turn is tied directly to rental revenues. The Foundation has already had inquiries from local employers for access to the proposed facility.

Since the property proposed for the ground lease is state property, there is no impact to the local tax base. Currently there is not a facility in the college’s service district to deliver the educational and training services being proposed, nor is one being considered. The goal of this project is to promote a higher trained workforce in order to improve the economic conditions of the region.

The benefits and obligations of the college (the state) under this proposal

A draft of the ground lease is in attachment C. The final contract will include the following terms:

The ongoing obligations of the college related to this proposal will be limited to providing access to the facility on its campus. The Foundation will be responsible for insurance, utilities, maintenance, and the operations of the building.

The college is not responsible for maintaining the facilities in general and would only be responsible for any portion it rents consistent with standard lease practices. Utility costs will be included in the rent charged by the Foundation. When the college rents space in the building, the funds necessary will come from its operating budget, where all rental and leases are currently paid.

The Foundation will have control over the facility and is in agreement with the college that the primary purpose is to support education, training, and economic development.

TAB 10

4

Scheduling of the facility will be the responsibility of the Foundation, in coordination with the college for the times and spaces rented for college programing. Actual hours of use will be determined based on the needs of the college, K12 partners, community, and economic development partners.

The primary purpose of this facility is to provide education and training for a wide range of partners. This list would include the college, K12 partners, governmental agencies, labor unions, and employers.

The ground lease will include a requirement for the Foundation to keep the building in good repair throughout the term of the lease.

The Foundation, as the owner and operator of the building will be responsible to maintain the facility to meet the types of use described above. Any party requiring specific modifications for their use will need to negotiate that with the Foundation. However, based on the flexible design of the facility, and the intent to operate in that fashion, this should be a rare occurrence.

With input from the users, the Foundation will be responsible for any reuse and/or reconfiguration of the facility for the duration of the ground lease

The Foundation will be responsible for code compliance, specifications, and construction within the footprint of the ground lease. Design will be finalized with input from the anticipated users. The college will be responsible for preparing the ground lease site for the construction of the facility, has set aside funding for this purpose and the work will be done in compliance with state public work and funding rules.

Requirements for facilities constructed on state owned property by an entity other than the college for subsequent donation to or for use by the college

The Foundation, its developer, and the college will agree on their respective limits of liability in the design and construction process. Liability insurance similar to that provided on similarly sized public work projects will be required to protect the state.

The Foundation has consulted with the college on general layout of the facility, but since this building will be primarily a large flexible commercial/industrial style structure, the design elements are minimal.

If the terms are acceptable to the State Board, the draft ground lease will be negotiated by college administration and undergo final review by the Attorney General’s office and the Office of the State Treasurer.

A 20-year ground lease will be executed by the State Board on behalf of the college so the Foundation can make the improvements and operate the facility.

The Foundation, College and City of Centralia have a long history of working together on capital projects, and will continue to do so on this project. The Foundation will require prevailing wages to be paid for all construction labor. The Foundation will hold ten percent of the bid amount for potential claims and require a performance bond from the developer, if deemed necessary by the State Board’s Executive Director and the office of the Attorney General.

The Foundation is required to remove the improvements at the end of the ground lease, unless otherwise allowed to remain, at the State Board’s discretion.

The overall nature of the facility is based on flexibility and the capability to change interior spaces to meet a wide variety of training uses, for the College and other organizations and businesses. The College has provided guidance based on needs when they will be using it and the basic configuration allows for that.

TAB 10

5

Financial or programmatic advantages that would be gained by the college and state

The Foundation will have a rental contract program geared toward shorter rental periods, which will allow maximum scheduling flexibility. While overall maintenance will be the responsibility of the Foundation, program-specific needs will be the responsibility of the renter.

The Foundation will be responsible for the construction costs and ongoing insurance, operating and maintenance costs. The college’s liability will be typical of operating programs in rented facilities.

Both the college and Foundation have reviewed their respective risks and responsibilities, and request the ground lease from the State Board so they can move ahead with this project.

Potential questions Is the ground lease and resultant facility and training consistent with the State Board’s goal to advocate for resources that support college enrollment?

Recommendation/preferred result Staff recommends approval of Resolution 19-05-25 giving its executive director authority to approve a 20-year ground lease with the Centralia College Foundation, a non-profit corporation, for the development of a training facility on the Centralia College campus.




TAB 10 Attachment A

6

CTE Building location on

proposed ground lease.

TAB 10 Attachment B

7

TAB 10

8

TAB 10

9

TAB 10

10

TAB 10

11

TAB 10

12

Centralia High School 813 Eshom Road Centralia, WA 98531-1599

360.330.7605 (main); 360.330.7613 (fax)

April 16, 2019

I am writing to express my support for Centralia College’s expansion of technical career pathways. Centralia College is continuously adjusting their program offerings to align with local economic needs, technical education. The college works closely with the local CTE director to propose, create, and implement new programs at the high school, which articulate with program offerings at Centralia College. This offers our students the best opportunity to pursue post-secondary education based on their interests and industry need. We value this support and collaboration here in Centralia School District. Their current strategy to create a pathway for post high school students, that would not otherwise pursue post-secondary education, demonstrates their commitment to the local community, educational, and economic needs. Centralia College’s desire to expand their facilities to include a dedicated CTE Center while they adapt and create new curriculum to reach these goals exhibits their commitment to meet the needs of our community, as well as students in their career goals. The development of such a center will benefit our community, new students recently graduating and those who are looking to get back into the workforce. Aligning these offerings with local Career, Technical and Education programs in Centralia School District creates pathways for students who have a strong interest in these particular fields. I support these endeavors and believe that by being part of the decision making process is beneficial to both institutions. Sincerely,

Monique D Dayton Monique Dayton, CFCS Centralia School District CTE Director

TAB 10 Attachment C

13

STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGES/CENTRALIA COLLEGE

GROUND LEASE

This Ground Lease Agreement ("Ground Lease") is made by and between the STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES (the "State Board"), on behalf of THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CENTRALIA COLLEGE, an agency of the State of Washington (the "College"), (collectively, the "Ground Lessor") and the CENTRALIA COLLEGE FOUNDATION ("Ground Lessee"), with reference to the following facts:

RECITALS A. The Ground Lessor is the owner of certain real property located on the grounds of the College in the City of Centralia, Lewis County, Washington, and more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein (the "Real Property"). B. The Ground Lessee is a recipient of a TransAlta Coaltransition grant and desires to use the grant proceeds to construct and operate a Career and Technical Education facility for the benefit and use of the College, local high schools, government agencies and current and potential employers for the purpose of workforce education and training. C. The College plans to use the facility to provide on-demand training to meet the needs of the K12 districts, governmental agencies, and private industry. The use of the facility will be of significant benefit to the College's students and programs, and to the economic development needs of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Ground Lessor, College, and Ground Lessee hereby agree as follows: 1. Premises In consideration of the Rent to be paid and the covenants and agreements hereinafter provided which Ground Lessee hereby agrees to keep and perform, the Ground Lessor hereby leases to Ground Lessee and Ground Lessee hereby leases from the Ground Lessor the Premises legally described in Exhibit A.

1.1. Acceptance of Premises. Ground Lessee has had an opportunity to and has conducted a thorough investigation of the Premises and is in all respects knowledgeable and familiar with the present condition of the Premises. The Premises are leased to Ground Lessee in their present condition without representation of warranty of any kind by Ground Lessor or College, express or implied, and subject to all applicable Legal Requirements (defined below) now or hereafter in effect; provided, however, the Ground Lessor warrants that it has marketable title to the Premises demised under the Ground Lease; the Premises constitute one or more separate legal lots; and the Ground Lessor and College have authority to lease the Premises to Ground Lessee pursuant to this Ground Lease. The Property leased is subject to any and all easements and encumbrances of record as of the date hereof as noted in the records of Lewis County. Not included herein are any mineral rights, rights to remove merchantable timber, water rights or any other right to excavate or withdraw minerals, gas, oil or other material, except as specifically granted herein.

1.2. Compliance with Legal Requirements and Agreements. Ground Lessee shall, at its sole cost and expense, comply with and perform all obligations with respect to (a) the Legal Requirements, and (b) all applicable contracts (including insurance policies, to the extent necessary to prevent cancellation and to ensure full payment of all claims made under such policies), covenants, conditions and restrictions, and all other applicable agreements to the Premises and its ownership, operation, use, or possession.

TAB 10

14

2. Term This Ground Lease shall be for a term of 20 years, with the option to renew for two (2) ten year terms, upon mutual agreement. 3. Rent Commencing on the Commencement Date, Ground Lessee shall pay to the College the following Rent: In consideration of the benefits to be received by the College as described herein, the annual rent for the Premises shall be $1.00 (One Dollar) per year, payable on the 31st of December. The amount of Rent has been determined by the Parties taking into consideration the following criteria: (a) the Premises are largely unimproved; (b) the Improvements will be owned by the Ground Lessor upon expiration of the term and any renewals thereof of this Ground Lease; (c) the restrictions set forth in this Ground Lease on Ground Lessee's use of the Premises; and (d) the College's and or its students usage of the premises. 4. Use of Premises. The Ground Lessee shall use the Premises for the construction, and operation of 12,000 square foot commercial/industrial style building, that will be adaptable to a variety of workforce training programs. No other use may be made of the Premises without the prior written approval of the Ground Lessor, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld

4.1. Prohibited Uses. (a) Ground Lessee shall not do or permit anything to be done on the Premises or the Improvements, nor bring or keep anything therein, which will in any way increase the premium or cause cancellation of fire or other insurance acquired pursuant to this Ground Lease or any other agreement executed by the Parties. (b) Ground Lessee shall not allow the Premises or the Improvements to be used for any unlawful purpose, nor shall Ground Lessee cause, maintain, or permit any nuisance in, on, or about the Premises or the Improvements. Ground Lessee shall not commit or suffer to be committed any waste in or upon the Premises, the Improvements, or the landscaping. Ground Lessee shall not do or permit anything to be done on the Premises or the Improvements that will cause damage to the Premises or the Improvements. (c) During construction, Ground Lessee shall at all times require its general contractor to conduct its activities in conformance with this Ground Lease and so as not to interfere with, obstruct, or endanger Ground Lessor's or the College's facilities, property, or operations. 5. Covenant Against Liens Ground Lessee covenants and agrees that it shall not, during the Term of this Ground Lease, suffer or permit any lien, charge, security interest, or encumbrance (collectively, "Liens") to be attached to, upon, or against the Premises, or any portion thereof or any Rent payable under this Ground Lease for any reason, including, without limitation, Liens arising out of the possession, use, occupancy, design, construction, repair, or rebuilding of the Premises or by reason of the furnishing of labor, services, materials, or equipment to the Premises or to Ground Lessee. Ground Lessee agrees to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold Ground Lessor and the College harmless from and against all liabilities, losses, damages, expenses, and costs (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) incurred in connection with any such Lien. Ground Lessee's obligations pursuant to this Section 6.1 shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Ground Lease.

TAB 10

15

6. Leasehold Improvements. 6.1. Ground Lessee agrees to design, construct, and diligently and continuously prosecute to completion the construction of the Improvements in a timely and cost-effective fashion, in a good and workmanlike manner, and in accordance with the approved Preliminary Plans (defined below), free and clear of all Liens and otherwise in accordance with the requirements of this Ground Lease subject to Section 7.2. 6.2. Construction of Improvements/Alterations. (a) Ground Lessee has provided schematic drawings ("Preliminary Plans") of the proposed facility as well as initial construction drawings to the College. The College has approved the design of the facility in the Preliminary Plans. (b) Ground Lessee shall contract for the construction of the Improvements at its sole cost and expense and shall diligently prosecute the construction of the Improvements to completion. Upon completion of the Improvements, the Ground Lessee will promptly provide the College, at no cost to the College, with a set of "as built" plans as provided by the construction manager/general contractor. (c) Ground lessee shall pay prevailing wage on all construction. 6.3 Disclaimer of Liability by the College. Approval by the College of the Preliminary Plans or the Approved Plans shall not constitute any representation or warranty by the College or the Ground Lessor that such plans comply with all Legal Requirements, and neither the College nor the Ground Lessor assumes any liability with respect thereto. Notwithstanding any provision of this Ground Lease to the contrary, neither the College nor the Ground Lessor is under any obligation or duty to, nor shall either of them design, supervise design, construct, or supervise construction of the Improvements, except to the extent that the Ground Lessor or the College disapprove of submitted plans per Section 6.2 above. The College's approvals of the Preliminary Plans and the Approved Plans as provided in this Ground Lease are for the sole purpose of protecting its rights as the owner of a reversionary interest in the Premises. 6.4 Hold Harmless. To the extent permitted by law, Ground Lessee shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless Ground Lessor and College from and against all claims and liabilities arising by virtue of or relating to construction of the Project or repairs made at any time to the Project (including repairs, restoration and rebuilding). Lessee shall regularly and timely pay any and all amounts properly payable to third parties with respect to such work and will maintain its books and records in the State of Washington, with respect to all aspects of such work and materials therefore, and will make them available for inspection by State or its representatives as requested.

6.5 Title to Improvements. (a) Title and ownership of all Improvements, fixtures, and equipment hereafter located on the Premises by Ground Lessee shall be vested in Ground Lessee until the termination or expiration of this Ground Lease. Unless otherwise agreed to, the Ground Lessee will remove the structure upon termination of the lease. If the parties agree not to have the structure removed, upon the termination or expiration of this Ground Lease, title to all Improvements shall vest automatically in the Ground Lessor. (b) During the term and any renewals thereof of this Ground Lease, the Improvements shall not be conveyed, transferred, or assigned without the prior written consent of the Ground Lessor and the College, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Ground Lessee shall allow no other person to construct, except for Ground Lessee's account, any additional improvements on the Premises, and except as allowed pursuant to Section 8.2(a) of this Ground Lease.

TAB 10

16

(c) All of Ground Lessee's right, title, and interest to any Improvements shall terminate and title to the Improvements shall automatically vest in the Ground Lessor and the Improvements shall be surrendered by Ground Lessee to the Ground Lessor upon expiration or earlier termination of this Ground Lease. No further deed or other instrument shall be necessary to confirm the vesting of title to the Improvements in the Ground Lessor. However, upon termination or expiration of this Ground Lease, Ground Lessee, upon request of the College or Ground Lessor, shall execute, acknowledge, and deliver to the College a deed in a form mutually agreeable to Ground Lessee, the College, and the Ground Lessor, confirming that all of Ground Lessee's right, title, and interest in the Improvements has expired and that title to the Improvements has vested in the Ground Lessor. 7. Maintenance and Modifications 7.1. Maintenance and Repairs. Maintenance and repairs of the Premises, the Improvements, all facilities and equipment thereon, and all sidewalks, curbs, gutters, landscaping, utility lines, and appurtenances and every part thereof, shall be undertaken by the Parties in accordance with a Management Agreement anticipated to be negotiated and executed prior to the completion of construction. 7.2. Modifications, Alterations, and Additions. (a) Ground Lessee shall not make any substantial modifications, alterations, additions, or improvements to the Premises or any part thereof (other than the Improvements) without first obtaining the prior written consent of the College, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed. In all events, Ground Lessee shall promptly furnish the College with copies of all plans and specifications prepared in connection with any substantial repairs, alterations, additions, or improvements. All such substantial modifications, alterations, additions, and/or improvements shall be constructed in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the College, which approval shall not be unreasonable withheld, conditioned or delayed. Notice and approvals required by this Section shall be given and all permits acquired as set forth in Section 7.2 herein. (b) Before commencing any work relative to the substantial modifications, alterations, improvements, or additions affecting the Premises, Ground Lessee shall notify the College in writing of the expected date of commencement thereof. The College shall then have the right at any time to post and maintain on the Premises such notices as the College reasonably deems necessary to protect the Premises and the College from construction or other Liens. Any such substantial modification, alteration, improvement, or addition shall be expeditiously completed in a good and workmanlike manner and in compliance with all applicable Legal Requirements and the requirements of all insurance policies applicable to the Premises. Ground Lessee will procure all necessary permits before making any such substantial repairs, alterations, additions, or redecoration. Ground Lessee shall pay, when due, all claims for labor, materials, supplies, or equipment furnished to or for Ground Lessee at or for use in the Premises. Ground Lessee shall not permit any Liens to be levied against the Premises for any labor, materials, supplies, or equipment furnished to Ground Lessee or claimed to have been furnished to Ground Lessee or to Ground Lessee's agents or contractors in connection with any modification work and any such Liens shall be removed. 8. Utilities and Services. During construction of the Improvements, Ground Lessee shall be solely responsible for all utility costs associated with the Improvements and construction thereof. Following completion of the Improvements, Ground Lessee shall continue to be responsible for utilities and services to the Improvements. However, the Parties may agree pursuant to a Management Agreement that the College shall be responsible for the provision of utilities and services to the Premises, with the cost thereof paid in accordance with the provisions of the Management Agreement. The interruption of utilities and services provided by the College according to the provisions of the Management Agreement shall not be deemed an eviction; however, the College or Ground Lessor shall be liable to the Ground Lessee for actual damages caused thereby: the foregoing

TAB 10

17

notwithstanding, the College or Ground Lessor may request permission from Ground Lessee to interrupt utilities and services in a manner which will not materially interfere with the Ground Lessee's use of the Premises, which permission shall not be unreasonable withheld. 9. Ground Lessee Financing of Improvements. Ground Lessee shall not have the right to mortgage, pledge, encumber, or assign its leasehold interest under this Ground Lease, in whole or in part, without the written permission of the College, which permission shall not be unreasonable withheld. 10. Maintenance of Premises. Following completion of the Improvements, it is contemplated that the maintenance will be primarily be obligation of the Ground Lessee. Parties may address further maintenance detail of the Premises under the terms of a Management Agreement to be negotiated and executed subsequent to the effective date of this Ground Lease. To the extent any terms of the Management Agreement are inconsistent with the terms of the Ground Lease, the terms of the Management Agreement as then existent shall govern. 11. Environmental Obligations of the Parties. 11.1 Definitions. As used in this Ground Lease, the following terms shall be defined as follows: (a) "Environmental Laws" shall include any and all federal state, and local statutes, regulations, rules, and ordinances, now or hereafter in effect, which in any way govern the use, storage, or spillage of any Hazardous Substances. (b) "Hazardous Substances" shall be interpreted in the broadest sense to include any chemical substance, material, or product defined or designated by federal or state law as hazardous, toxic, radioactive, dangerous, or regulated wastes, including, but not limited to, those provisions listed in Section 22.5 of this Ground Lease. (c) "Environmental Costs" shall be interpreted in the broadest sense to include, but shall not necessarily be limited to: (i) costs or expenses relating to any actual or claimed violation of or noncompliance with any Environmental Law; (ii) all claims of third parties, including governmental agencies, for damages, response costs, or other relief; (iii) the cost, expense, or loss to a Party to this Ground Lease as a result of any injunctive relief, including preliminary or temporary injunctive relief, applicable to the Party or the Premises; (iv) all expenses of evaluation, testing, analysis, cleanup, remediation, removal, and disposal relating to Hazardous Substances, including fees of attorneys, engineers, consultants, paralegals, and experts; (v) all expenses of reporting the existence of Hazardous Substances or the violation of Environmental laws to any agency of the State of Washington or the United States as required by applicable Environmental Laws; (vi) any and all expenses or obligations, including attorneys' and paralegal fees, incurred at, before, and after any trial or appeal therefrom or any administrative proceeding or appeal therefrom, whether or not taxable as costs, including, without limitation, attorneys' and paralegal fees, witness fees (expert and otherwise), deposition costs, copying, telephone, and telefax charges and other expenses; and (vii) any damages, costs, fines, liabilities, and expenses which are claimed to be owed by any federal, state, or local regulating or administrative agency. 11.2 Responsibility for Cleanup/Remediation and Costs. (a) Should the presence of Hazardous Materials be discovered on the Real Property during design or construction of the Improvements, the College shall, in coordination with Ground Lessee and its contractor, cause such material(s) to be removed and disposed of and the Real Property remediated in full compliance with all Environmental Laws or orders or directives of governmental regulators with jurisdiction over the Premises and the Parties. All Environmental Costs, together with any costs incurred by Ground Lessee due to delay or the necessity of coordination of the cleanup or remediation, shall be borne by the College.

TAB 10

18

(b) Should Ground Lessee or its contractors cause to be spilled or discharged Hazardous Materials on the Premises, then Ground Lessee or its contractor shall cause such material(s) to be removed and disposed of and the Premises remediated in full compliance with all Environmental Laws or orders or directives of governmental regulators with jurisdiction. All Environmental Costs incurred to effect such cleanup shall be borne by the Ground Lessee or its contractor(s). 11.3 No Use of Hazardous Substances. No handling, generation, storage, creation, disposal, transportation, or discharge of any Hazardous Substances shall be permitted on, about, or from the Premises except as approved in writing by the College. This restriction shall not apply, however, to use of construction materials and supplies needed for use in construction of the Improvements, or to office and janitorial supplies which are available over the counter for common use by members of the general public so long as such use is in small quantities, or to Hazardous Substances, nor shall this prohibition apply to substances fully contained inside of vehicles so long as used in accordance with all Environmental Laws. 11.4 Environmental Inspection. The Parties reserve the right to inspect for Hazardous Substances and/or another Party's management of Hazardous Substances of the Premises at any reasonable time, and from time to time, with notice to the other Party. 11.5 Disposal of Hazardous Substances. Neither the Ground Lessor, the College, Ground Lessee, nor any of Ground Lessee's tenants shall dispose of any Hazardous Substances, regardless of the quantity or concentration, into any drainage ditches, storm, and/or sanitary sewer drains and plumbing facilities within the Premises, or other property of the College except in compliance with all Environmental Laws. Any disposal of Hazardous Substances shall be in approved containers and removed from the Premises only in accordance with the law. If the College or Ground Lessee knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, that any release of Hazardous Substances has come to be located on or beneath the Premises, then the College or Ground Lessee, as the case may be, must immediately give written notice of that condition to the other Party. 11.6 Notice to Party. Any Party hereto shall immediately notify all other Parties hereto upon becoming aware of a violation or alleged violation of any Environmental Law and/or: (1) any leak, spill, release, or disposal of a Hazardous Substance on, under, or adjacent to the Premises or threat of, or reasonable suspicion of, any of the same; and/or (2) any notice or communication from a governmental agency or known by a Party directed to any Party hereto or any other person relating to such Hazardous Substances on, under, or adjacent to the Premises or any violation or alleged violation of any Environmental Laws with respect to the Premises. 11.7 Indemnity/Hold Harmless. Each Party hereto shall indemnify and hold harmless the other Parties for any Environmental Costs incurred by an indemnified Party to the extent that the indemnifying Party or its agent or employee causes any violation of an Environmental Law or any spillage or mishandling of any Hazardous Material for which any Environmental Costs are incurred. 11.8 Compliance with Laws and Regulations. The Parties hereby represent, warrant, covenant, and agree to and that all operations or activities upon, or any use or occupancy of the Premises or any portion thereof by Ground Lessee, the College, or any occupant of the Premises shall, throughout the Term of this Ground Lease, be in compliance in all material respects with all state, federal, and local Environmental Laws and regulations governing or in any way relating to the generation, handling, storage, use, transportation, discharge, or disposal (whether legal or illegal, accidental or intentional) of any Hazardous Substances. 11.9 Breach as Material Default. All Parties hereby specifically acknowledge and agree that (a) each of the covenants, obligations, agreements, representations, and warranties set forth in Section 11 is a material inducement to the Parties to enter into this Ground Lease, and (b) breach by any Party of any covenants, obligations, agreements, representations, and warranties set forth in Section 11 shall constitute a material breach

TAB 10

19

of this Ground Lease by the breaching Party, entitling the other Parties to all of the rights and remedies provided to the Parties under this Ground Lease or under applicable law. 11.10 Survival. Each of the covenants, agreements, obligations, representations, and warranties of the Parties set forth in this Section 11 shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Ground Lease. 12. Insurance Policies. All insurance required under this Section 13 shall: (i) be issued by a licensed public entity risk pool or insurance companies authorized to do business in the state of Washington with a rating reasonably satisfactory to the College and Ground Lessee; (ii) be issued as a primary policy; (iii) contain an endorsement requiring forty-five (45) days' prior written notice from the insurance company to the College and the Ground Lessee before cancellation or change in the coverage, scope, or amount of any policy; and (iv) specify the College, the Ground Lessor, and the Ground Lessee each as named insureds. 12.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance. During the Term of this Ground Lease, Ground Lessee shall, at its sole cost and expense, obtain and keep in force throughout the Term of this Ground Lease, commercial general liability insurance on an occurrence basis, insuring the College and the Ground Lessee against claims for personal injury (including, without limitation, bodily injury or death), property damage, and such other loss or damage from such causes of loss as are embraced by insurance policies of the type now known as "Commercial General Liability" insurance, with a combined single limit of not less than $5,000,000.00. Such insurance shall be in form and with deductibles reasonably satisfactory to the College and Ground Lessee. The Ground Lessee shall be the insured and such policy shall be primary and non-contributory to any coverage maintained by the College. The limits of such insurance shall not, however, limit the liability of the Parties hereunder. 12.2 Property Insurance. Commencing upon the construction of the improvements and thereafter during the Term of this Ground Lease, Ground Lessee shall obtain and maintain on the Premises (including the Improvements) insurance policies of the type now known as "all risk" or "special cause of loss" property insurance, including boiler and machinery insurance, in an amount not less than 100% of the then full replacement cost of the Improvements (exclusive of the costs of excavations, foundations, and footings below the lowest basement floor) and Personal Property without deduction for physical depreciation. Such property insurance shall be in builder's risk form during initial construction of the Improvements and during any restoration accomplished in connection with damage or destruction to the Premises. Ground Lessee is responsible for payment of any deductibles under said insurance policies and any reasonable costs of restoration resulting from any uninsured or underinsured losses. The insurance policies shall be issued in the name of the College, the Ground Lessor, and the Ground Lessee as named insureds. Any proceeds of such insurance shall be applied to all expenses associated with the restoration of the Premises so long as the proceeds, together with other funds provided by Ground Lessee, will be sufficient to pay in full for such restoration. If the proceeds and funds are insufficient to pay for such restoration in full, the proceeds shall first be applied to destruction and removal of damaged Improvements, at the option of the Ground Lessee. 12.3 Builder's Risk. During the course of construction of the Career and Technical Education Center, Ground Lessee or its general contractor shall keep in place a policy of "builder's risk" insurance fully insuring the replacement value of portions of the constructed Improvements. 12.4 Waiver of Subrogation. Anything in this Ground Lease to the contrary notwithstanding, Ground Lessee, Ground Lessor, and the College each waives its entire right of recovery, claims, actions, or causes of action against the other for physical loss or damage to the Premises, or any personal property of such Party therein or loss of use of the Premises that is caused by loss or damage that is insured under any insurance policies carried by the Parties and in force at the time of damage or loss. Ground Lessee shall cause each insurance policy obtained by it to provide that the insurance company waives all right to recovery by way of subrogation against either the College or Ground Lessor in connection with any such loss or damage.

TAB 10

20

12.5 Failure to Maintain Insurance. If Ground Lessee shall fail to provide the insurance or evidence of insurance required hereunder, the College may obtain such policies as the agent of the Ground Lessee, and the premiums paid for such insurance shall be paid by Ground Lessee to the College upon demand. The College shall be limited in damages that the College may claim against Ground Lessee arising out of or by reason of Ground Lessee's failure to provide and keep in force policies as aforesaid, to the amount of the insurance premiums not paid or incurred by Ground Lessee. 13. Damage or Destruction of Premises. 13.1 Ground Lessee's Duties. If any of the Improvements or any appurtenance thereto shall be damaged or destroyed by fire or other casualty, Ground Lessee shall give prompt written notice thereof to the College, and shall, to the extent possible given its financial resources, proceed with reasonable diligence to carry out any necessary demolition and/or to restore, repair, replace, and rebuild such Improvements at Ground Lessee's own cost and expense. If any insurance proceeds shall have been paid by reason of such damage or destruction, Ground Lessee shall be entitled to such proceeds for the purpose of such demolition and/or rebuilding, as set forth in and subject to Section 13.2 hereof. 13.2 College's Rights. If Ground Lessee fails or neglects to supply sufficient workmen or sufficient materials of proper quality, or fails in any other respect to prosecute such work of demolition, restoration, repair, replacement, or rebuilding with diligence and promptness, then the College may give Ground Lessee written notice of such failure or neglect; and if such failure or neglect continues for sixty (60) days after such notice, then the College, in addition to all other rights which the College may have, may at its sole expense enter upon the Real Property, provide labor and materials, cause the performance of any contract, and take such other action as the College may deem necessary, in which event the College shall be entitled to reimbursement of its reasonable costs and expenses out of any insurance proceeds not used by Ground Lessee for any such demolition, restoration, repair, replacement, or rebuilding it has undertaken. 14. Condemnation. If during the Term there is a taking or damaging of all or any portion of the Premises by the exercise of any governmental power, whether by legal proceedings or otherwise, by a governmental agency with jurisdiction or a transfer by any Party either under threat of condemnation or while legal proceedings for condemnation are pending (a "Condemnation") such that there can be no reasonable use of the Premises by Ground Lessee, this Ground Lease shall terminate on the date the governmental agency has the right to possession of the property being condemned. Any award authorized by Title 8 RCW with respect to the taking of the Premises (except for the Improvements) shall belong to the Ground Lessor, and with respect to the Improvements shall belong to the Ground Lessee. If during the Term there is a partial taking of a part of the Premises by Condemnation, and the Parties agree that a reasonable use can be made of the Premises, then this Ground Lease will continue in full force and effect as to the remainder of the Premises with any award for such partial taking payable in full to Ground Lessee. 15. Assignment and Subletting. The Ground Lessee shall not assign nor sublet the Premises without first obtaining Ground Lessor's and the College's prior written consent, which may be exercised in the sole discretion of either Ground Lessor or the College. It is acknowledged by the parties that assignment of the Ground Lessee's interest in this Ground Lease to a private entity for educational programming or other purposes is not a reasonable use of the premises unless specifically agreed to by the College and the Ground Lessor. 16. Liability. Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement, each Party to this Ground Lease shall be responsible for its own acts and/or omissions and those of its officers, employees, and agents. No Party to this Ground Lease shall be responsible for the acts and/or omissions of entities or individuals not a party to this Ground Lease. This Section shall survive the expiration or other termination of this Ground Lease. This Section is for the sole benefit of the Parties and shall not inure to the benefit of any third party. No Party shall be considered the "agent" of the other for purposes of this Section.

TAB 10

21

17. Failure to Perform. Failure to perform any other material provision of this Ground Lease if the failure to perform is not cured within thirty (30) business days after written notice of such default has been given by Ground Lessor and the College to the Ground Lessee, or by the Ground Lessee to the College and Ground Lessor. If the default cannot reasonably be cured within thirty (30) business days, then no Party shall be in default under this Ground Lease if the Party commences to cure the default within thirty (30) business days and diligently and in good faith continues to cure the default. 18. Remedies. In the event of any material default or breach by a Party, the non-defaulting Party(ies) may, at any time thereafter, without limiting such Party(ies) in the exercise of their rights or remedies at law or equity, or as set forth herein, maintain the Ground Lease in full force and effect without terminating Ground Lessee's right to possession of the Premises. 19. Signs. Ground Lessee shall not place identification signage, other signage, advertisements, awnings, banners, or other exterior decorations on the exterior of the Premises without the approval from the College, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld so long as such signs comply with the College's policies regarding signs. Any sign that Ground Lessee has the right to place, construct, and maintain shall comply with all laws; and Ground Lessee shall obtain any approval required by such laws. The College makes no representation with respect to Ground Lessee's ability to obtain such approval. 20. Duties of the Parties Upon Termination. 20.1 Duties on Termination. Unless otherwise agree to, the Foundation agrees to remove the facility at the expiration of this Ground Lease. If the facility is agreed to be left in place, Ground Lessee shall deliver all keys to the College and surrender the Premises and the Improvements on the Premises in reasonable order, condition, and wear. Depreciation and wear from ordinary use for the purpose for which the Premises were let need not be restored. Improvements constructed by Ground Lessee with permission from the College shall become the College's property and shall not be removed. Ground Lessee shall also provide to the College, upon expiration of earlier termination of this Ground Lease, all building and maintenance records and other pertinent information in Ground Lessee's possession pertaining to construction, operation, and maintenance of the Improvements and the Premises. 20.2 Holding Over. If the Ground Lessee shall hold over after the expiration or termination of the Term or any renewals thereof of this Ground Lease, and the College and the Ground Lessee shall not have agreed in writing upon the terms and provisions of a new ground lease (or on an additional extension of this Ground Lease) prior to such expiration, the Ground Lessee shall remain bound by all terms, covenants, and agreements hereof. 21. Miscellaneous Provisions. 21.1 Entire Agreement. This Ground Lease represents the entire agreement between the Parties; provided that this Ground Lease shall be construed together with the Management Agreement, when drafted, , and the Joint Operation Agreement as currently enacted. This Ground Lease may not be amended or rescinded in any manner except by an instrument in writing signed by a duly authorized officer or representative of each Party hereto.; 21.2 Governing Law. This Ground Lease shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the state of Washington. 21.3 Severability. Should any of the provisions of this Ground Lease be found to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be stricken and the remainder of this

TAB 10

22

Ground Lease shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect unless striking such provision shall materially alter the intention of the Parties. 21.4 Jurisdiction. In the event any action is brought to enforce any of the provisions of this Ground Lease, the Parties agree to be subject to exclusive in personam jurisdiction in the Lewis County Superior Court for the State of Washington. 21.5 Waiver. No waiver of any right under this Ground Lease shall be effective unless contained in writing signed by a duly authorized officer or representative of the Party sought to be charged with the waiver, and no waiver of any right arising from any breach or failure to perform shall be deemed to be a waiver of any future right or of any other right arising under this Ground Lease. 21.6 Captions. Section captions contained in this Ground Lease are included for convenience only and form no part of the agreement between the Parties. 21.7 Notices. All notices or requests required or permitted under this Ground Lease shall be in writing, shall be personally delivered or sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, or by facsimile transmission, and shall be deemed given three (3) days following the date when mailed or on the date when delivered or faxed (provided the fax machine has issued a printed confirmation of receipt). All notices or requests shall be sent to Ground Lessor, the College, and Ground Lessee, addressed as follows: If to Ground Lessee: Centralia College Foundation ATTENTION: ____________

ADDRESS If to College: Centralia College Attention: __________ 600 Centralia College Blvd. Centralia, WA 98531-4099 If to Ground Lessor: State Board for Community and Technical Colleges 1300 Quince St. SE, POB 42495 Olympia, WA 98504-2495 Either Party may change the address to which notices shall be sent by notice to all other Parties. 21.8 Binding Effect. This Ground Lease shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the Parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. No permitted assignment of this Ground Lease or Ground Lessee's rights hereunder shall be effective against the College unless and until an executed counterpart of the instrument of assignment shall have been delivered to the College and the College shall have been furnished with the name and address of the assignee. The term "Ground Lessee" shall be deemed to include the assignee under any such permitted assignment. Unless required or directed by law, neither the College nor Ground Lessor shall sell, transfer, or convey the Premises, except to a city, county, state, governmental subdivision or agency, municipal corporation or public development authority, without the prior written consent of Ground Lessee, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed. 21.9 Gender and Number. As used in this Ground Lease, the masculine shall include the feminine and neuter, the feminine shall include the masculine and neuter, the neuter shall include the masculine and feminine, the singular shall include the plural, and the plural shall include the singular, as the context may require.

TAB 10

23

21.10 Nondiscrimination and Affirmative Action. No Party shall discriminate in employment at the Premises on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, veteran status, or physical and mental disability in regard to any position for which the employee is qualified. 21.11 Fair Construction. The provisions of this Ground Lease shall be construed as a whole according to their common meaning not strictly for or against any Party and consistent with the provisions contained herein in order to achieve the objectives and purposes of this Ground Lease and any Management Agreement reached between the College and Ground Lessee. Each Party hereto and its counsel has reviewed and revised this Ground Lease and agrees that the normal rules of construction to the effect that any ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting Party shall not be applied in the interpretation of this Ground Lease. 21.12 Recording. This Ground Lease shall not be recorded, but the Parties shall executed and acknowledge a Memorandum of this Ground Lease in a form reasonably acceptable to the Parties which may be recorded. Within ten (10) days following the expiration or earlier termination of this Ground Lease, Ground Lessee shall execute and deliver to the College an instrument, in recordable form, confirming the termination of this Ground Lease, which instrument, at the College's option, may be placed of record in real estate records in the county in which the Premises are located. 22. Definitions. As used in this Ground Lease, the following capitalized terms shall have the following meanings: 22.1 "Calendar Year" means a calendar year commencing January 1 and ending December 31. 22.2 "Environmental Law" means any federal or state regulation promulgated to regulate Hazardous Substances, including, but not limited to, the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et seq., Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. Section 9601 et seq., Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Control Act, 49 U.S.C. Section 1801 et seq., Federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 7401 et seq., Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Federal Water Act of 1977, 33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq., Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, Federal Pesticide Act of 1978, 7 U.S.C. Section 136 et seq., Federal Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2601 et seq., Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 300f et seq., Washington Water Pollution Control Act, RCW Chapter 90.48, Washington Clean Air Act, RCW Chapter 70.94, Washington Solid Waste Management Recovery and Recycling Act, RCW Chapter 70.95, Washington Hazardous Waste Management Act, RCW Chapter 70.105, Washington Hazardous Waste Fees Act, RCW Chapter 70.95E, Washington Model Toxics Control Act, RCW Chapter 70.105D, Washington Nuclear Energy and Radiation Act, RCW Chapter 70.98, Washington Radioactive Waste Storage and Transportation Act of 1980, RCW Chapter 70.99, Washington Underground Petroleum Storage Tanks Act, RCW Chapter 70.148, and any regulations promulgated thereunder, all as amended from time to time. 22.3 "Fiscal Year" means a twelve-month period commencing July 1 and ending June 30 of the following calendar year. 22.4 "Ground Lessee" means the Centralia College Foundation and its predecessors, successors, and assigns. 22.5 "Hazardous Substances" shall include, without limitation: (a) Those substances included within the definition of "hazardous substances," "hazardous materials," "toxic substances," or "solid waste" in the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.) ("CERCLA"), as amended by Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-499 100 Stat. 1613) ("SARA"), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

TAB 10

24

of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.) ("RCRA"), and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq., and in the regulations promulgated pursuant to said laws, all as amended. (b) Those substances listed in the United States Department of Transportation Table (49 CFR 172.101 and amendments thereto) or by the Environmental Protection Agency (or any successor agency) as hazardous substances (40 CFR Part 302 and amendments thereto). (c) Any material, waste, or substance which is (i) petroleum, (ii) asbestos, (iii) polychlorinated biphenyls, (iv) designated as a "hazardous substance" pursuant to Section 311 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. (33 U.S.C. § 1321); or listed pursuant to Section 307 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1317), (E) flammable explosives, or (F) radioactive materials. (d) Those substances defined as "dangerous waste," "hazardous waste," or as "hazardous substances" under the Water Pollution Control Act, RCW 90.48.010 et seq., the Hazardous Waste Management Statute, RCW 70.105.010 et seq., and the Toxic Substance Control Act (Senate Bill No. 6085), RCW 70.105B.010 et seq., the Model Toxics Control Act, RCW 70.105D.010 et seq., and the Toxic Substance Control Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2601 et seq., and in the regulations promulgated pursuant to said laws. (e) Such other substances, materials, and wastes which are or become regulated as hazardous or toxic under applicable local, state, or federal law, or the United States government, or which are classified as hazardous or toxic under federal, state, or local laws or regulations. 22.6 "Improvements" means the approximately 12,000 square foot building to be constructed on the Real Property. 22.7 "Law" means any constitution, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, judicial decision, administrative order, or other requirement of any federal, state, county, municipal, or other governmental agency or authority having jurisdiction over the Parties or the Premises, or both, in effect either at the time of execution of this Ground Lease or at any time during the Term, including, without limitation, any regulation or order of a quasi-official entity or body (e.g. board of fire examiners or public utilities). 22.8 "Legal Requirements" means all obligations with respect to all applicable local, state, and federal laws, ordinances and regulations, and other governmental rules and orders now or hereafter in effect, whether or not presently contemplated, applicable to the Premises or its ownership, operation, use or possession, including (without limitation) all those relating to parking restrictions, building codes, zoning, life safety requirements, or other land use matters, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended. 22.9 "Liens" has the meaning set forth in Section 6 of this Ground Lease. 22.10 "Personal Property" means equipment, furniture, and other movable personal property placed in or on the Premises by Ground Lessee. 22.11 "Premises" means the Real Property and Improvements to be located thereon situated in the City of Centralia, Lewis County, Washington. 22.12 "Real Property" means the land on which the Premises are located, as more particularly described in Exhibit A. 22.13 "Year" means each succeeding year of the term, commencing with the Commencement Date and ending with the date which is one (1) day less than one (1) year later.

TAB 10

25

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Ground Lease as of the dates set forth below. GROUND LESSOR: STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES Approved as to form: By JAN YOSHIWARA, Executive Director Assistant Attorney General Date: for SBCTC BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CENTRALIA COLLEGE By Dr. Bob Mohrbacher, President Date: GROUND LESSEE: CENTRALIA COLLEGE FOUNDATION By Peter Abbarno, President Date:

TAB 10

26

Exhibit A Legal description to be developed.

TAB 10

27


RESOLUTION 19-05-25

A resolution relating to Centralia College District’s request to lease property rights to the Centralia College Foundation, a non-profit corporation, for construction, maintenance, and operation of a training facility on the Centralia College campus.

WHEREAS, the facility to be built on the leased property will provide needed pre-apprenticeship, apprenticeship, and existing workforce training; and

WHEREAS, the Centralia College will receive income for providing the training; and

WHEREAS, the location and use it consistent with the Centralia College facility master plan; and

WHEREAS, the community around Centralia College will benefit from more training opportunities; and

WHEREAS, the Foundation will design the facility to meet a variety of training needs; and

WHEREAS, the Foundation will be responsible for construction, operation and maintenance of the facility for the term of the lease; and

WHEREAS, construction labor will be paid prevailing wages; and

WHEREAS, the lessor is required to remove the improvements at the end of the ground lease, unless otherwise allowed to remain, at the State Board’s discretion; and

WHEREAS, on April 11, 2019, Centralia College’s Board of Trustees authorized college administration to negotiate this ground lease with the Centralia College Foundation and present it to the State Board for approval; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges authorizes its Executive Director to approve a 20-year ground lease with the Centralia College Foundation, a non-profit corporation, for the development of a training facility on the Centralia College campus.



Attest



TAB 11

1

REGULAR ITEM May 2, 2019

Tab 11

Legislative Update

Brief Description The board will be updated on 2019 legislative priorities and emerging issues.

How does this item link to the State Board’s 2018-19 priorities? Identifying possible changes to state law that result in improved service delivery to students supports four system goals:

• Enrollment, Completion and Equity: When legislative goals are met, community and technical colleges have the resources to maintain open doors and promote student success to completion. The 2019 operating budget request as well as two bill proposals for review, address access and student success.

• Advocacy: To accomplish the college system legislative goals, State Board members, staff and system leaders are engaged with the legislature and policy makers to support colleges in promoting student success.

Background information and analysis The primary focus entering the 2019 legislative session is the college system’s operating and capital budget requests.

Operating Budget With a focus on competitive compensation for college faculty and staff, funding for Guided Pathways, and programming for high demand workforce needs, the operating budget request provides much needed services to our students and enhance Washington’s community and technical college system’s ability to respond to ever growing and ever changing employer demands in their regions around the state.

Capital Budget The Capital Budget request provides students with high-quality classroom and lab space and places for educational support so they can achieve their goals. Our college system faces a backlog of needed projects which funding of the 2019 request to the legislature would greatly reduce. Overall, the list will fund 37 major projects at 29 colleges and minor projects needed at all 34 colleges.

Policy Issues Statuses are current at the time of this agenda writing on April 23.

State Board Request Legislation

• HB 1714: Concerning community and technical colleges awarding high school diplomas.

o A community or technical college may issue a high school diploma or certificate at the time a student receives an Associate’s Degree if the student does not already have a high school diploma. This would apply to students age 16 and older.

o Status: Passed both chambers.

TAB 11

2

• SHB 1715: Removing school districts’ ability to withhold grades and transcripts of students.

o If a student owes a fine or fee to a school district and the payment of that fine prevents a college from receiving that student’s grades or transcripts, that fine or fee will not be required to be paid.

o Status: Passed House. Placed on second reading by Senate Rules but did not proceed.

Other Issues

• HB 1702: Online educational resources / low cost college materials.

o Requires community and technical college courses with low cost materials to be highlighted in college on-line course catalog. Low cost is defined as less than $50.

o Status: Passed House. Placed on second reading by Senate Rules but did not proceed.

• SHB 1734: Requiring accreditation standards for College in the High Scholl programs.

o Requires any college or university currently offering concurrent enrollment programs to be nationally accredited by academic year 2027-28.


• 2SHB 1893: Postsecondary student assistance.

o Creates a grant program for community and technical colleges to provide emergency monetary assistance to students.

o Requires the state Department of Social and Health Services to identify educational programs at the colleges that would meet the requirements of state-approved employment and training programs, and requires the department to request waivers from the federal government so students could use their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits on campus.

o Allows students who are eligible for the State Need Grant to be also eligible for SNAP.


• 2SHB 1973: Access and affordability for dual credit programs.

o Establishes the Washington Dual Enrollment Scholarship Pilot Program to provide scholarships and textbook vouchers to low-income Running Start and College in the High School students.


• SHB 2158: Workforce Education Innovation Act.

o Creates a funding source for higher education including the State Need Grant, Guided Pathways and competitive compensation for faculty in high demand fields.

o Status: Public hearing in House Appropriations on April 22.

• E2SSB 5327: Expanding career connected learning opportunities.

o Establishes coordinators to develop and expand opportunities for academic credit for career launch programs at institutions of higher education.

o Creates a competitive grant program to support regional networks and program intermediaries in expanding career connected learning opportunities.

o Status: Passed Senate. Referred to House Appropriations but did not proceed.

TAB 11

3

• E2SSB 5393: College promise scholarship

o Establishing a statewide free college program by changing the State Need Grant to the Washington College Promise Scholarship.

o Status: Passed Senate. Hearing and Executive Session in House College and Workforce Committee but did not proceed.

• 2SSB 5433: Providing postsecondary education opportunities to enhance public safety.

o Require the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, the Department of Corrections and the Office of the Chief Information Officer to write a plan on implementing secure internet connections in prisons for postsecondary education.

o The plan, due to the governor and the Legislature by Dec. 1, 2019, would also assess the barriers and costs associated with providing internet, a fiscal impact review and a plan for implementing expanded postsecondary degree opportunities.


• 2SSB 5800: Concerning homeless college students.

o Establishes pilot programs to assist students experiencing homelessness and students who were in the foster care system when the graduated high school.


Potential questions • Does the State Board have feedback or questions about progress towards meeting system

wide legislative goals?

Recommendation/preferred result The State Board is asked to provide feedback on current legislative advocacy efforts.


Prepared by: Arlen Harris, legislative director 360.704.4394, [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

state board meeting agenda - sbctc · however, it is about much more than new software. ctclink is...

Documents