[0:20] Thank you for joining us. We're going to give it

[0:22] about a minute for folks to just settle down. We

[0:26] are going to get started. Thank you.

[0:51] I'm hearing in parents, so I wanted to see if

[0:53] we might be able to get the volume turned up

[0:54] a little bit. Please. Thank you for making that request,

[1:03] Dr. Audi. Is that possible? I can hear it. Can

[1:06] you hear now. Yeah. OK, perfect. Thank you. And it

[1:11] is a reminder that we should, when we speak, try

[1:15] to speak a little bit slowly for if we have

[1:17] any translators or folks that are hearing impaired. Thank you.

[1:38] Ok, let's get started. Happy Friday to everyone and thank

[1:43] you for joining us for this important task force, meaning

[1:47] of the South County Higher Education planning task force. This

[1:52] is our second meeting, and we have quite an agenda

[1:57] this morning. Just to kind of orient everyone before we

[2:00] do roll call. The task force discussion today is pretty

[2:05] substantive. Today, we turn to one of the most consequential

[2:09] questions before this task force. The governance choices that will

[2:14] shape how the university district at Trulvista moves from planning

[2:20] toward formation and operation. And as the materials themselves recognize

[2:25] today is a starting point rather than a final word

[2:28] on governance. Unless there is strong consensus among the task

[2:33] force that we are ready to move forward with a

[2:37] recommendation or recommendations. But our goal is to understand the

[2:42] choices before us, identify the principles that should guide our

[2:46] evaluation, provide direction on the approaches that warrant further development,

[2:53] and distinguish between areas of emerging agreement and questions that

[2:58] may require additional analysis before the task force makes recommendations

[3:02] to the legislature. I will try to manage this discussion,

[3:09] but I want members to feel open and with curiosity

[3:14] with a sense of purpose of this meeting. And so

[3:19] looking forward to all of everyone's perspectives in this meeting

[3:25] today. And so with that, I'm going to request, roll

[3:29] call to be called, thank you. Yes, member Aguirre. Present.

[3:35] Member Allen. Present. Member on Guyano. Member Aronsed Bia.

[3:49] I'm sorry. President. Member in Carnesian. Present. Member Falcon. Present.

[4:01] Remember grave. Member Jones. Present.

[4:12] Memberedesma. Present. Member Malcolm.

[4:23] Remember more? Present. I understand member Sanchez's absent. And member

[4:29] tongue. Present.

[4:38] Okay. Thank you very much. Before we get to public

[4:43] comment, let's move forward with an approval of the May

[4:47] 1st minutes, which is found in our consent calendar. May

[4:52] I actually, do we have public comment first on that

[4:54] item. None? Okay. If there are any questions or comments

[5:02] from the dais or a motion, I'll take that now.

[5:07] Motion to approve. Okay. Motion made by member, Allen, second

[5:11] bye. Membered on CBA. All in favor. Aye. Aye. Any

[5:18] opposed? Aye. Thank you. Any abstentions. Okay. The minutes from

[5:25] May 1. Meeting are approved. Before we move forward, we

[5:30] have one speaker slip for public comment. And I'd like

[5:35] to invite Orlando, he sent it to come up to

[5:37] the podium. To make your comment. Thanks for being here.

[5:51] Good morning task force members. My name is Orlando. I'm

[5:55] the student trustee at Southwestern College. And I'm here in

[5:59] full support. And on behalf of all the students that

[6:02] I represent, thank you. I've been volunteering alongside Marlene since

[6:07] May. So I've seen firsthand just how much work you

[6:10] guys are putting in to get this university bill. But

[6:13] to ensure that this is an absolute success. We have

[6:16] to talk about who actually runs it. When these multi

[6:21] agency districts are built, the board seats are naturally go

[6:24] to city council members, mayors and university administrators. And if

[6:30] a student is included at all, it almost always defaults

[6:33] to a non - voting advisory vote. And as you

[6:38] draft your final recommendations, my strongest request today is that

[6:43] you include a permanent voting student trustee on the UDCV

[6:49] governing board. I see the value of a student vote

[6:52] firsthand at Southwestern College. And a board of officials is

[6:58] powerful. A board with a student vote is tied to

[7:01] the reality of the students. We are the ones who

[7:05] will actually live with the decisions that you guys make.

[7:11] And we know exactly what resources and support systems our

[7:15] classmates need to graduate. And while you're designing this university

[7:20] to keep the local talential Avista, guarantee a permanent student

[7:25] vote in your governance structure and let us help you

[7:28] build the university that truly serves South County. Thank you.

[7:36] Thank you for your perspective and for being here. All

[7:41] right, next item update on the task force activities. Do

[7:46] we ever speaker? Yes. Ms. Garcia. Thank you. Good morning

[7:54] task force members chair Falcon. This is indeed an important

[7:59] discussion. It's our second meeting of four meetings. And so

[8:03] we, you have noted that the agenda is chock full

[8:06] of information. And there is a lot you'll be considering.

[8:11] Governance, as mentioned by the chair is in fact probably

[8:14] one of the more complex and significant issues you'll be

[8:18] addressing because it really sets the foundation for the long

[8:21] - term planning. Well, also thinking about where we are

[8:24] today and how we take that first step. So it's

[8:26] really important, the deliberations and the materials that you have

[8:30] been absorbing in preparation for this discussion. I want to

[8:35] recognize that the staff have scanned national models and looked

[8:39] at California models. And there is no other entity that

[8:43] is attempting to do what we're trying to do. So

[8:46] we are doing something truly exceptional, unique. And certainly important

[8:50] for this community. So thank you. Since our last meeting

[8:54] though, we have been working very hard on other activities

[8:58] related to the three task force pillars of land use

[9:02] governance and finance. And I'm just want to kind of

[9:06] give you a quick update on where we're having conversations

[9:09] and where we're making inroads. Um, the first one is

[9:12] binational roundtable. We are privileged to have been able to

[9:18] meet with binational higher education experts, have lots of conversations

[9:23] of trying to understand the question of what does it

[9:25] really mean to have a university with a binational dimension

[9:30] by design. And that really is the key, that it's

[9:33] actually envisioned as part of the structure in the system.

[9:37] So you'll be hearing today from representatives from that group.

[9:41] And there were 20 plus individuals who met with us

[9:43] and gave their thoughts and really gave a lot of

[9:45] thought to how we designed something together. The second update

[9:50] is of community forum we held on July 25th. This,

[9:54] we had no idea how the community was going to

[9:56] respond, but we were just so pleased that 60 plus

[9:59] people showed up for the community meeting. And they were

[10:03] genuine community people who are excited. And enthusiastic about this

[10:08] university. And as I was reading through their comments, many

[10:11] of them left comments, um, they were all saying things

[10:14] like we're so excited about this happening in our community.

[10:18] How can I help? How can I be more engaged?

[10:20] I want to know more about this. So we've really

[10:23] are trying to build a community outreach effort that can

[10:28] engage community their thoughts, their ideas, because they had a

[10:31] lot of great ideas that they surfaced at the, uh,

[10:34] at the forum. But the highlight of the form was

[10:37] the students. We had a student panel. And the students

[10:40] really brought it all home. They talked about what it's

[10:43] like in the South Bay and in the Baja Gali,

[10:47] the Calibaja area trying to get a degree and education.

[10:51] They said things like, I spent hours on the bus

[10:54] just to get to class. I crossed the border every

[10:57] day so I can earn my degree. I need to

[11:00] stay close to home because my family needs me. These

[11:03] are real heartfelt feelings that the students bring with them.

[11:07] And they are so excited about having a university that

[11:10] is within close proximity to their families and to their

[11:14] homes and to their work. Because of the importance of

[11:20] community engagement, it is established, it is actually a provision

[11:23] within AB 662 to engage the community. We're trying to

[11:28] define what that looks like. And I'm really pleased to

[11:30] announce that, uh, we've been talking to a lot of

[11:33] philanthropic entities, but we recently received a pledge from the

[11:37] James Irvine Foundation that they're going to give us 50,

[11:40] 000 dollars to engage in some community outreach now as

[11:44] soon as possible to build on the work of a

[11:47] task force. Because the number one issue we're hearing is

[11:51] awareness. We need to get the word out. So more

[11:53] people understand the incredible work that's being done here in

[11:57] Chula Vista. So the more to come on that. And

[12:00] I really want to thank you to the Irvine Foundation

[12:04] and to college futures. The other philanthropic organization that has

[12:07] contributed and is continuing to contribute to, um, consultant support

[12:12] to help us with these very challenging and important issues.

[12:17] The last thing is that I'd like to mention is

[12:20] we are also reaching out to the business community because

[12:23] after all this institution is going to be designing academic

[12:27] programs that are career - lined, that there produced jobs

[12:31] at the end for our students. So we have to

[12:33] be communicating closely with the business community. So working with

[12:37] the city's economic development, director and others were scheduling a

[12:43] couple of business meetings to come in the next month.

[12:46] One is going to be a luncheon here in Chula

[12:48] Vista with co - hosting it with the Chula Vista

[12:52] City, the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce. And we'll be

[12:56] giving an update on the task force and also the

[12:59] vision behind the university district at Chula Vista. You'll all

[13:03] be invited if you're available and interested. And it'll be

[13:06] an important discussion to hear from local business entities. Um,

[13:10] we are also planning another business roundtable discussion with San

[13:15] Diego business leaders at large economic development leaders at large.

[13:19] We are still firming up the last details, but you'll

[13:22] be hearing more about that. But I think that most

[13:24] important thing is that we hear these perspectives that we

[13:28] get out beyond and understand how this, what we're creating

[13:32] is bigger than just a university. It is an economic

[13:36] development opportunity that helps people connect people to jobs, but

[13:40] also increases, um, local prosperity and opens access to higher

[13:46] education. We are doing everything we can to hear those

[13:50] comments, to bring it to you and to certainly to

[13:53] reflect that in the final report. The business community will

[13:57] have two representatives that it sends to your November meeting

[13:59] when you are talking about finance and to talk about

[14:03] their perspective and their suggestions for what you might want

[14:06] to consider to intentionally build a connection with workforce, um,

[14:12] from the beginning. So that's my report. And we're really

[14:16] excited about, uh, what you're all going to discuss today

[14:20] and the commitment you've all, um, demonstrated and being part

[14:23] of this effort. So thank you very much. I'm happy

[14:25] to answer questions. Thank you, Marlene. And first of all,

[14:30] before I open it up to questions and comments, I

[14:33] just want to thank you, um, and the city staff

[14:36] and your fellow consultant team, um, for all the substantive

[14:39] preparation and all the work that you've done in the

[14:43] interim between the first and second meeting and really reframing

[14:48] the work that that's been done and the vision work

[14:52] as well as, um, the very successful community form that

[14:57] took place very recently. So thank you. Any questions or

[15:01] comments from the dais on, Marlene's presentation. Okay. Thank you.

[15:08] I'd like to now call up Marty Alvarado of Sova.

[15:15] And Marty will be providing us an update on the

[15:18] vision framework. So and then following that will be Adriana

[15:22] Rolf. Good morning. Uh, good morning. Uh, thank you for

[15:32] letting me join you this morning. I am here to

[15:35] provide a very brief update on the vision mission defining

[15:40] characteristics document. Uh, as you may recall at our last

[15:43] meeting, we introduced a draft, uh, prototype of the vision,

[15:49] mission, defining framework document. Uh, the intent was to introduce

[15:52] the content, solicit feedback, provide time for reflection. There was

[15:56] a feedback form that was provided where we gathered all

[15:59] of your, um, perspective and recommended edits and acknowledgments of

[16:05] the content. Thank you to everyone who participated and to

[16:08] the really robust feedback. Really appreciate it. Um, as a

[16:12] result of that feedback, we have gone through and made

[16:14] refinements of the document, uh, and the content. Some of

[16:18] it was minor, minor word changes, language changes, but we

[16:22] wanted to bring back to, uh, the group four, if

[16:27] you will, four distinct highlights. Just to call your attention

[16:30] to some of the more substantive changes. First, we really

[16:33] went through and tried to, um, sure that we were

[16:36] explicit about the nature of expectation for collaboration. This was

[16:40] a key point of feedback from members that they wanted

[16:43] it to be clear that this is not just, uh,

[16:45] every man for himself, uh, at the site, but very

[16:48] much, uh, coalition of the willing who want to engage

[16:52] in joint partnership and really have a vested interest in

[16:55] the endeavor. We also clarified the adaptive, excuse me, additive,

[17:00] not competing. And so really trying to make explicit that

[17:03] this was intended to be something that was added to

[17:06] California's higher education ecosystem, not designed to compete with our

[17:10] existing institutions across the region. We also made sure that

[17:15] we were here making explicit the adaptive and accountable, that

[17:21] the expectation for the endeavor was that it was going

[17:24] to continue to evolve, uh, be adaptive, uh, make explicit

[17:28] the use of technology AI and different resources so that

[17:31] the enterprise was responsive to the changing landscape impacting higher

[17:36] education. And then lastly, we tried to clarify some language,

[17:41] really holding onto the concept of a learning society and

[17:44] a learning sector that is rooted in the research. But

[17:47] really, uh, bringing back language that is much more familiar

[17:50] in terms of lifelong learning infrastructure. Because what we are

[17:53] talking about is an enterprise that is serving the community,

[17:56] uh, at any stage of their educational journey. And so

[18:00] really, uh, really leaning into lifelong learning infrastructure language and

[18:04] the ecosystem of partnership language. Uh, so those were the

[18:08] four big substantive changes, if you will. Again, very minor,

[18:13] uh, really grateful for all of the thoughtful feedback, uh,

[18:16] that really, um, reinforced the members'commitment to the transformative and

[18:21] sort of future forward orientation of the vision mission and

[18:25] defining characteristics document. Any questions. Do you have a question

[18:35] from Dr. Enkartasian? Thank you, Chair. I have one question

[18:38] that doesn't have to be answered today because I think

[18:40] we are short on time. But something to think about

[18:41] moving forward, um, the additive by design is very familiar

[18:47] to us at the University Center as we embark on

[18:51] partnerships and collaborations with our university partners. And it's, it's

[18:55] truly, um, important when you're collaborating, um, I think it

[19:01] would be really good to go back. And I'd be

[19:03] curious what the city thinks about additive by design in

[19:07] this location city land. I know that there has been

[19:13] really a focus on being able to recruit universities and

[19:18] not being boxed into what universities you recruit over the

[19:22] decades, additive by design. We have a community college. We

[19:28] have adult schools. We have private and public universities all

[19:32] in this region. If we are going to add to

[19:34] it and not duplicate, that means we can't recruit any

[19:38] universities. Um, because we have all of the programs we

[19:42] have certificate. We have community - based learning. We have

[19:47] credit for prior learning. We have research institutions. So more

[19:53] maybe diving in with the city too and what it

[19:55] means to them and their recruitment efforts because of economic

[19:59] development. So again, doesn't have to be answered today, but

[20:02] maybe like really looking at that additive by design and

[20:07] non - duplication and non - competing. What does that

[20:10] mean in terms of economic development, business recruitment, business development

[20:16] and really integrating a robust ecosystem of higher education that

[20:21] also integrates with economic development? Right. Love it. Um, no,

[20:26] no answer to that, if you will. But I think

[20:28] it's valuable to note that when we're thinking about additive

[20:33] by design and really valuable for the conversation to come

[20:36] around governance is non - competition is also not the

[20:40] same as non - additive, right? And so I think

[20:43] it's really thinking about the population that needs to be

[20:45] served in the region and how does this endeavor create

[20:49] an additive environment for the individuals in the region who

[20:53] are currently underserved, right? As a population. And so I

[20:56] think that that'll be an important sort of framing to

[20:59] wrestle with as you all get into the governance content.

[21:02] But thank you for that feedback. Definitely making a note

[21:04] of it. Great. Thank you. Um, any other comments or

[21:10] questions from members. Okay. Thank you for your comments and

[21:18] for your response. Yes. Dr. out on sevia. I want

[21:23] to circle back to Ms. Garcia's points. Yeah. I think

[21:28] your mic is not on. Is it out now? There

[21:32] you go. Okay. I want to circle back to the

[21:34] points that, uh, Marlene gave me about awareness. I think

[21:41] that needs to be somewhat circled back here. Cause I

[21:44] think this is one of the things that within division

[21:47] framework, I think needs to be kind of put out

[21:50] there. It seems to me that, um. Again, it's like,

[21:55] this is one of the things about nuts and bolts

[21:56] and putting the cart before the horse. I think the

[21:59] awareness part of this and being able to have that

[22:01] as part of the vision to make sure that the

[22:05] students know that we're exploring options for this kind of,

[22:08] uh, access for the folks that aren't used to having

[22:12] access. Does that make sense? I mean, I hope that

[22:17] the awareness component needs to be also engaged, I think,

[22:21] if that makes sense. That's not just even the clarifying

[22:24] question on that one. By awareness, are we thinking communication

[22:28] outreach marketing, all of those pieces? Yeah, it's also a

[22:32] self - fulfilling prophecy, right? In the sense that the.

[22:35] One of the things I keep hearing is the cost.

[22:38] The cost, the cost, the locale affects cost. And then,

[22:43] I mean, I have kid in college. Cost is expensive,

[22:45] you know, so it's kind of like, how are we

[22:48] communicating and providing awareness that this will reduce the cost.

[22:53] For students? And how involve access. I think that's, that's

[22:56] one of the things I think might be just an

[22:59] important thing to kind of consider. This is so good.

[23:01] And let me test a little bit. I started to

[23:02] take up a little bit more time, but I think

[23:04] this is such a important point. These two points together

[23:07] because what we're, what it sounds like we're talking about

[23:09] is making sure that we're being clear that this is

[23:11] going to be a different kind of benefit to individuals

[23:14] who come to this by reducing costs, by creating different

[23:17] opportunities by making sure that this is something additive, uh,

[23:23] and, uh, sort of a different experience that creates a

[23:26] different access point. Is that a fair? That's absolutely what

[23:30] I want. This is so good. We will definitely go

[23:31] back. And this I think is a really good, uh,

[23:34] example or illustration of the desired process that we're taking

[23:37] in the feedback, trying to wrestle through it and, uh,

[23:41] we'll keep bringing it back to you as we continue

[23:42] to refine it. But thank you. Great. Yes. Dr. Encarnacion.

[23:48] Only fix I want to add to that. You just

[23:49] made me want to add to that. Sorry. I also

[23:52] think that additive is not, um, just saying duplication. Additive

[23:58] could be, and this will segue us into this governance,

[24:01] I promise. Additive could be, um, not necessarily creating a

[24:06] ceiling of just workforce development, just lifelong learning in terms

[24:11] of creating opportunities for, um, working adults. It's still absolutely

[24:16] could be what the city also has talked about is

[24:20] high research universities, but creating that additive value, which is

[24:26] access and affordability and ensuring the governance structure, um, requires,

[24:33] um, for this entity, whatever it ends up being, um,

[24:36] requires for the universities they recruit to work in some

[24:40] policies that require access and affordability for our local students.

[24:46] Love it. Thank you. Great discussion. Um, any other comments.

[24:56] Um, yeah, so when I'm, what I'm hearing from the

[24:58] both of you, uh, from member on CBN and member

[25:02] in Carnacion is ensuring that, you know, that we continue

[25:06] to iterate this work on vision, um, and ensuring that,

[25:12] you know, we're grounded in common priorities, which I'm hearing

[25:19] is access particularly to folks in our binational region as

[25:27] well as, you know, ensuring that we are open to

[25:31] inviting potential, um, institutions, um, have a conversation about potentially

[25:40] locating, um, or having a presence in this site is

[25:45] what I'm hearing. Correct. Okay. Great. Well, thank you. Um.

[25:52] Next, I think is Adriana. This item before you is

[26:02] a quick overview of the presentation you heard at your

[26:06] last meeting. Regarding the site regarding the university district site

[26:11] and infrastructure requirements, particularly as it relates to the initial

[26:15] phase of development. Um, you've already heard that in 2018,

[26:20] the city successfully entitled the University District site and completed

[26:23] all the environmental clearances for approximately four million square feet

[26:27] of academic space. 1. 6 million square feet of student

[26:30] faculty and staff housing, two million square feet of market

[26:34] rate residential and tumuling square feet of innovation uses. That

[26:39] lays a foundation, that means the foundation has already been

[26:42] laid allowing us to focus on attracting the educational institutions

[26:46] and innovation partners that will bring this project this vision

[26:51] to life. You also heard from Carrier Johnson, the firm

[26:57] retained by the city to prepare master plan for the

[26:59] first 35 acres of the university district site. As the

[27:03] initial phase of development. The first phase envisions of vibrant

[27:08] mixed use campus anchored by a student union approximately one

[27:11] million square feet of academic research and innovation space. Uh,

[27:15] 2, 700 parking spaces, 10 acres of open space and

[27:20] a central services facility. This slide illustrates the phasing strategy

[27:26] that was discussed, which is designed to provide flexibility as

[27:29] development progresses and institutional and industry partners begin to establish

[27:33] a presence on site. As part of the master planning

[27:42] effort, consultants developed a rough order of magnitude, construction, costs,

[27:46] estimate as well. Including the necessary infrastructure. The estimated cost

[27:51] to complete all phases of the initial project is approximately

[27:55] 2. 17 billion. And that is just a wrap up

[27:59] an overview of what you heard at your last meeting,

[28:01] but I wanted to refresh that, um, for new members.

[28:06] And without that, we'll transition to the next agenda item.

[28:10] But I'm available for any questions. Thank you, Andre. Any

[28:16] questions or comments from members. Yes, member Malcolm. Welcome, by

[28:23] the way. Send us, uh, digitally all those of that

[28:27] information that was sent. To each of the members, please.

[28:31] Yes, absolutely. Thank you. All right. Thank you. And the

[28:36] other questions or comments from members. Okay. Thank you very

[28:41] much. Okay. Moving on to the meat of today's meeting

[28:47] is the background on governance structural considerations. And I'd like

[28:53] to invite, is it Marty Alvarado again. Yeah, okay, great.

[29:01] I'm going to be very quick. And we're going to

[29:04] dig into this more in a future item. But as

[29:07] we have been preparing, the governance recommendations for the members

[29:12] to review. What we wanted to make sure we were

[29:15] doing is introducing an organizational maturity framework in a way

[29:19] that can help us locate some of the things that

[29:22] maybe top of mind for members, uh, and where it

[29:25] might be most appropriate for us to think about when

[29:27] those questions or items may come up over the course

[29:31] of the evolution of the organization. And so you have

[29:35] in your materials and organizational framework that really places our

[29:40] endeavor right now at the concept stage. And really then

[29:43] beginning to transition into the formation stage. Again, we're going

[29:47] to get into this more, uh, in just a moment,

[29:50] uh, in a next item. But we wanted to introduce

[29:54] as you go into hearing the conversation and the presentations

[29:57] around the different governance vehicles, keeping in mind that currently

[30:02] this endeavor is at the concept stage. And we will

[30:04] be moving into a formation stage. And so we are

[30:07] thinking about governance relative to what sort of emerging governance

[30:11] structures are necessary as we move from an idea into

[30:15] an actual formation. We are not at the mature. We

[30:18] are not at the fully operational, et cetera. We are

[30:21] really just trying to stand it up. And so just

[30:23] wanted to, um, make sure that we are continually reinforcing

[30:26] that as we think about the different structures and recommendations

[30:30] needed. Thank you. Any questions or comments just on the

[30:38] process that was laid out by Ms. Albrado. I do

[30:43] have a question. When you're, when you say you're going

[30:47] to concept to formation, can you kind of dig a

[30:49] little bit deeper on that? What is the lens by

[30:52] which you're evaluating each of these recommendations? So, uh, what

[30:59] we were trying to do was, um, make sure that

[31:03] the recommendations moving forward were appropriate for the stage at

[31:07] which the entity is. So for example, um, some of

[31:11] the feedback and some of the comments that have surfaced

[31:14] were oriented around things like credit for prior learning. Like

[31:17] we want to make sure we have credit for prior

[31:19] learning infrastructure, you know, opportunities for students. That feels more

[31:22] at the operating stage as opposed to we need a

[31:26] board to actually figure out what this, uh, enterprise is

[31:29] going to do. And then it's the responsibility of let's

[31:32] say a board or some sort of governance vehicle to

[31:35] be able to make those decisions and structures, if you

[31:38] will. And so just trying to make sure that this

[31:40] framework will help us locate where those conversations might be

[31:43] most appropriate to happen as we start, um, start, uh,

[31:47] very often digging into or defaulting to the operational implementation.

[31:52] Okay. Thank you. We do have a speaker in the

[31:57] room, Mario Lopez. Chair Falcon. Yes. And I did have

[32:00] a question. Oh, yes. Of course. Dr. Moyes says. And

[32:03] the framework. I appreciate the, the framework gives us a

[32:07] roadmap. My question was, it's anticipated that it's going to

[32:12] be a multi - institutional campus. And as such, is

[32:16] it contemplated that it would be possible for different entities

[32:20] or institutions to be at different stages of formation? Or

[32:24] is this how rigid is it and how fluid is

[32:27] it in regards to different institutions and where they're coming

[32:30] in? And I want to make sure we give ourselves

[32:32] flexibility. So for example, the university A who's here earlier

[32:38] and they're further down the construction process. And then we

[32:43] will kind of, we'll forge these academic ties as well.

[32:48] But a latter point, institution B or university being that

[32:53] wants to come in. Obviously they're going to have to

[32:55] be at an earlier stage of this framework. I just

[32:57] wanted to get an idea for the thought process. Yeah.

[33:00] For the fluidity. Yeah. So I should have started by

[33:02] saying, um, as we were trained by all of our

[33:05] researcher colleagues, every framework is wrong. Some can be helpful.

[33:10] Right. And so, uh, this is not meant to be

[33:13] like rigid and now you've had it and it's going

[33:16] to be compartmentalized when we moved a formation. Now we're

[33:19] done. You've missed your opportunity. It is really intended to

[33:22] help us have a conversation together around what this evolution

[33:26] looks like. And I think what you're calling out, which

[33:29] is the different places and stages that wear different entities

[33:32] enter into the partnership. I think the goal, as you'll

[33:36] hear from some of the binational partners and some of

[33:38] the work that's happening is to be clear about where

[33:41] we want to start and then really then creating the

[33:44] space for the onboarding, understanding that as this enterprise matures,

[33:49] there is going to be new partners, new business partners,

[33:52] new education partners. And so how do we create a

[33:54] structure that actually facilitates that? A governance structure that actually

[33:57] facilitates that. Absolutely. Great. Any other clarifying questions before we

[34:03] go to public comment. Okay. Um, Mario Lopez.

[34:19] Good afternoon. Muy buenas tardes. I'm very excited to be

[34:22] here. My name is Mario Lopez. I'm a private consultant.

[34:26] I do cross border public affairs. And they've been in

[34:28] the region for the last 25 years in different positions.

[34:32] Born in Chula Vista race in Tijuana. I'm here to

[34:35] say that this is very exciting. I'm very supportive. Everything

[34:38] that has been common, especially on this last line item.

[34:42] And this work is not only important for the cross

[34:45] - border region. It's essential. It's essential because it will

[34:49] unlock the future and the real potential of her cross

[34:52] - border community, something that South Bay has always lived

[34:56] with, I think, but it never actually has embraced as

[35:00] far as action. So it really commend all the work

[35:02] done. And there's about 75, 000 daily commuters. Who I

[35:07] think are not necessarily aware that this great work is

[35:10] being taken place. Uh, huge number of those are students.

[35:15] A lot of them go to private schools that I

[35:18] think should be part of this conversation. A lot of

[35:20] them go to private public schools as well in different

[35:24] capacities. And also it's very important to mention there are

[35:28] over 30, 000 American children in the Tijuana public school

[35:31] system that eventually going to make their way up north.

[35:35] 30, 000 because of different migration. Issues housing deportations COVID.

[35:42] This is a phenomenon that we did not have in

[35:45] other years backed. So this work is essential to the

[35:48] future. And again, this is part of a great workforce.

[35:52] It makes us unique along the U. S.- Mexico border.

[35:56] It makes us, um, really harness what we can do

[35:59] from both sides. So really, I'm excited about this. I'm

[36:02] very supportive. A lot of people from it came to

[36:04] Tijuana to support this. And I think having these conversations,

[36:09] they've already had south of the border will be been

[36:12] important for the project and long - term. And I

[36:15] appreciate all the work and all the time, especially the

[36:17] work, the great staff of the city of Chulapesa has

[36:20] been doing. Thank you for your time. You got to

[36:22] ask you. Thank you for being here. And I did

[36:25] realize that I went out of order by opening up

[36:29] to public comment, but appreciate your comments. Um, I will

[36:33] now request, um, Adriana Ochoa with Snell and Wilmer to

[36:38] provide the legal frame room work for consideration. Thank you.

[36:44] And good morning to the task force. I'm Adriano Ochoa,

[36:47] partner at Snell and Wilmer. I'm legal counsel for the

[36:49] task force. And I am here to talk about the

[36:54] legal frameworks and structures for governance. Just waiting for my

[36:59] PowerPoint to pop up.

[37:32] Thank you. Okay. So we are going to talk about,

[37:37] as you know, the legal structures for the potential future

[37:41] entity. The bill asks this task force to identify and

[37:47] recommend government structures for the mixed use intersegmental educational facility

[37:51] in Julevista. That's part of the report that has to

[37:54] be transmitted next year. Uh, an overview of the legal

[37:58] structure is considered the consortium model specifically addressed in the

[38:03] legislation itself. A joint powers authority. MOU based coordination, new

[38:09] statutory entity and a nonprofit organization are among the legal

[38:13] structures that we considered when coming to the recommendation. So

[38:19] first, the consortium model. An educational consortium is a partnership

[38:23] where multiple schools, universities or libraries pull their resources to

[38:27] expend student opportunities and reduce operational costs. Generally, this looks

[38:33] like shared services agreements for facilities, library books. Um, maybe

[38:39] transportation. Cross registration, meaning students enrolled at one institution can

[38:44] take classes at any other member school or joint purchasing

[38:48] for things like books or other technologies. Um, key features

[38:52] of the consortium. It is a fundamentally a contractual arrangement

[38:58] rather than the creation of a new legal entity. Uh,

[39:01] this approach is flexible. It preserves each segment's existing administrative

[39:06] structure while fostering collaboration. And it does not require new

[39:10] enabling legislation. However, because it is contractual rather than statutory

[39:15] or otherwise protected by law. This also means that a

[39:19] consortium would lack the independent legal personality of a JPA

[39:23] or a newly created entity or district. The consortium could

[39:28] not hold property in its own name issue debt or

[39:31] employee staff unless the party's designated one member as the

[39:35] fiscal and administrative agent. And that puts a disproportionate amount

[39:39] of risk on that entity. Also, you know, as part

[39:45] of the discussion, even though it's at a future meeting,

[39:47] we did talk about financing options and a consortium would

[39:51] luck. The financing capacity for major capital projects. And when

[39:55] you look at stuff like bonds, um, the bond markets

[39:58] typically prefer a single legal entity over a web of

[40:01] contractual obligations among separate institutions. The next model we considered

[40:10] was a joint powers authority. Under the joint exercise of

[40:15] powers act, which is in the government code, uh, participating

[40:20] public agencies may create through the creation of a joint

[40:23] powers agreement. A JPA or a joint powers authority to

[40:27] jointly exercise powers that are common to the contracting parties.

[40:31] The JPA would be a separate legal entity. That can

[40:35] hold property, enter into contracts, issue debt, employee staff. And

[40:40] importantly, act as a liability shield. The principal advantage of

[40:46] a JPA is the institutional permanence and the unified authority

[40:51] or the buy - in, as we like to say.

[40:54] As a separate legal entity, uh, the JPA can, as

[40:59] I said, hold title to facilities and perform a number

[41:03] of tasks that no consortium or MOU would be able

[41:06] to replicate without designating one member to bear disproportionate fiscal

[41:10] and administrative responsibility, as well as inherent additional risk. This

[41:16] independent legal disposition also positions the JPA as a single

[41:20] applicant for stuff like federal and state grants. Um, and

[41:25] it would capture intersegmental funding opportunities that might otherwise require

[41:30] fragmented institution by institution applications. The JPA's ability to issue

[41:36] revenue bonds, lease revenue bonds, cops certificates of participation and

[41:42] access to Marx Roos pooled financing gives a capital market

[41:46] access that consortiums or MOUs would lack entirely. JPAs are

[41:52] public agencies because they're formed by public bodies. So they

[41:55] would be subject to open meeting laws, public records, SEQA

[41:59] and prevailing wage in the construction process. Um, we considered

[42:04] the drawbacks of a JPA with your minimal loss of

[42:08] an independent control among the participating agencies, but there is

[42:12] a mechanism for control, which is the appointment of your

[42:15] respective members on the JPA's governing board. Uh, there are

[42:19] some binational considerations, which we will go over sort of

[42:23] in the recommendation phase. But note that under a JPA

[42:28] model, a Mexican public university would not be able to

[42:31] participate as a member. Uh, and that's because they are

[42:35] governed by a different set of laws of different countries

[42:37] that have loss. Um, and the other federal kind of

[42:40] contracting issues with states or public agencies contracting with foreign

[42:44] governments. Um, but we do have a proposed solution, which

[42:48] is the JPA could contract with a 501c3 nonprofit that

[42:53] is operated with affiliated by our controlled by a Mexican

[42:56] university. Contracts can be 50 years, right? They can be

[43:01] very long. And so you could have a more permanent

[43:06] partner with a Mexican university or a nonprofit that is

[43:11] affiliated with the Mexican university through something like a contract.

[43:19] MOU - based coordination. So MOUs or memorandums of understanding

[43:25] is another model that we explored. It's less formal. Um,

[43:30] it's basically a series of contracts that could govern specific

[43:35] aspects of the university district. Um, space allocations scheduling, cost

[43:41] sharing, program coordination and student services. No separate legal entity

[43:45] would be created, which provides max flexibility for each party.

[43:50] However, there are a number of limitations to this model.

[43:54] Again, it lacks the institutional permanence needed for a major

[43:58] capital project here. If you're talking about hundreds of millions

[44:01] of dollars, um, MOUs are generally a little too loose

[44:06] for that. Um, every significant decision would require each of

[44:10] the parties to the MOU to go back to their

[44:12] respective boards for coordination or decisions, which can slow things

[44:15] down. Uh, there's no independent borrowing capacity each institution would

[44:20] have to finance its own share. Um, parties can withdraw

[44:25] or let agreements lapse under, for example, the JPA model

[44:28] withdrawal is possible, but it's a lot harder and more

[44:32] complicated. Um, things like pensions and retirement, um, uh, funds

[44:40] are considered statutorily. We're us in something like an MOU

[44:43] or even a consortium. They're not. Um, and there are

[44:47] potentially increased aggregate costs of capital versus a consolidated entity.

[44:53] The staff, when we came out on this, we thought

[44:56] that an MOU would be best suited for the early

[44:58] phases of collaboration as we start gathering and soliciting partners

[45:04] for the university districts. Probably not appropriate for the large

[45:09] - scale capital development. We also considered the new statutory

[45:15] entity as a model for the task force. Um. We

[45:22] could recommend new legislation, uh, for a new statutory entity.

[45:27] And that could define the entities powers, membership, fiscal authority

[45:31] and relationship to each participating segment. Something it could do

[45:37] that a JP could not is authorized capabilities that are

[45:40] not common to the constituent members. A new statutory entity

[45:48] could be tailor - made for the unique university district.

[45:53] And it could be granted its own express powers. So

[45:56] that's a pretty rigid form of creation that you would

[46:00] be recommending. Um, but this approach carries drawbacks that warrant

[46:05] careful consideration. Establishing a holy new statutory entity would require

[46:11] separate follow - on legislation, adding time and political certainty

[46:16] beyond both the reporting deadline and the existing statute's sunset.

[46:22] A new entity could impose duties on the city or

[46:26] other local agencies that could generate unanticipated costs or unanticipated

[46:31] outcomes. Beyond the legislative process itself, the new statutory entity

[46:39] would be comparatively rigid once created. A new entity would

[46:43] be harder to amend or dissolve than a consortium or

[46:47] a JPA whose terms could be renegotiated directly by in

[46:52] between the parties. Um, the authorizing legislation, depending on how

[46:57] specific it would be, could risk duplicating or conflicting with

[47:01] existing statewide governance structures or the academic. Unless the authority

[47:08] is precisely carved out relative to each segment's existing governance.

[47:19] Thank you. Okay. Next, uh, next we'll go to the

[47:22] nonprofit. Let me see if I covered everything here. Yes,

[47:27] pretty much. And the last model discussed was a nonprofit

[47:33] or a 501c3 nonprofit public benefit corporation. Another, you know,

[47:40] one of the, besides the JPA, the only other model

[47:43] that's got a corresponding principle act in the corporations code.

[47:47] It's covered by statute. Um, so this is a practical

[47:50] vehicle for the binational participation where the other, um, options

[47:56] are, it gets a little bit more complicated. A 501c3

[48:01] could be affiliated with the Mexican university, which would enable

[48:04] cross - border collaboration without triggering statutory or constitutional constraints.

[48:10] Key features. So a nonprofit could be modeled on the

[48:13] friends of organization structure, which is a very popular organization

[48:17] structure across the country for cross - border collaboration. Um,

[48:21] there's no IRC, which is the internal revenue code. There's

[48:25] no federal prohibition on foreign entities creating a 501c3. There's

[48:30] no residency requirements for directors. So our friends on the

[48:35] Mexican University side could participate despite being Mexican national citizens

[48:41] on a 501c3's board, um, to create representation. And have

[48:46] their voices heard. Uh, the board would be independent and

[48:49] could take on any number of different personalities, right? In

[48:55] terms of how large or small it can be and

[48:57] in terms of what the participation would look like. And

[49:00] of course, the US board would be required to maintain

[49:03] discretion and control over funds. The advantages, so this would

[49:08] eliminate the public agency limitation under the joint exercise of

[49:14] powers act if the 501c3 executes a contract with a

[49:17] JPA. And the nonprofit would be able to receive and

[49:23] hold funds in U. S. dollars and accept tax deductible

[49:27] donations, which is something, for example, a JPA couldn't offer.

[49:31] Um, it would insulate the JPA from foreign sovereign immunity

[49:35] issues. And again, there's no need for special legislation, congressional

[49:39] consent, um, or, or treaty or other considerations. Um, so

[49:46] again, this is an overview of the five models that

[49:50] were considered. And I think Marty is going to go

[49:53] over the recommended model moving forward, but I'm happy to

[49:57] answer any questions about the legal structures of the governance.

[50:01] Thank you, Ms. Ochoi. And thank you for clearly laying

[50:04] things out very clearly for us. Any clarifying questions before

[50:10] we go to the next speaker. Yes. Dr. Jones. Dr.

[50:16] Moore. As a point of clarification, um, I think I

[50:21] heard that you can use both models or two or

[50:24] more models or are we looking for just one. Yes.

[50:28] We, uh, absolutely. And part of the recommendation is actually

[50:32] almost three. It's kind of early stage MOU to recruit

[50:35] and solicit partners. Then the establishment of a JPA, which

[50:39] I don't want to spoiler alert, but, um, establishment of

[50:42] a JPA once we have some partners that are willing

[50:44] to participate in that. And then maybe or around the

[50:47] same time the formation of a nonprofit so that we

[50:50] can start developing the operational and by national component, um,

[50:55] and longer term, you know, now we're getting into the

[50:57] later parts of that maturity arc because longer term would

[51:02] the JPA have perpetual life. It depends, right? Because it

[51:07] depends on what we need from it. Um, there's a,

[51:10] there's a situation where maybe that could happen. There's a

[51:13] situation where maybe it wouldn't be necessary anymore depending on

[51:15] the nonprofits. Depending on the structure of the whole university

[51:19] district, um, and what happens with the land and potentially

[51:24] leases. But, um, but no, you can definitely, and those

[51:27] two models kind of go nicely together. The JPA with

[51:32] the 501c3, both for fundraising opportunities for the Binance national

[51:36] component and a number of other reasons that Marty will

[51:38] articulate when we get to the recommendation. Thank you. Sure.

[51:42] Dr. Moore. Yes, I have a comment on slide two.

[51:49] So the bullet that you didn't read here, um, under

[51:52] drawbacks, which is Compax negotiations among divergent institutional cultures, governance

[51:56] traditions, legal authorities. University's often have joint governance as part

[52:01] of their governance, their internal governance structure, which includes the

[52:05] academic Senate. And they have greater or less authority depending

[52:12] on the institution. However, I think we should go into

[52:15] this very clear eye because I can anticipate that we

[52:20] could set something recommends something here. And then once it

[52:24] goes into the internal conversations within the participating partnerships, um,

[52:30] there could be quite a bit of, of back and

[52:33] forth. And there needs to be flexibility in order to

[52:35] be able to, um, accommodate that. Thank you. Yes. And

[52:40] that's an excellent point. So, you know, I would say

[52:43] each of these options, all five contemplate complex negotiations among

[52:48] divergent institutional cultures, um, and the legal authorities are something

[52:54] that a joint powers authority agreement in particular would have

[52:57] to navigate carefully. Um, but education is a matter of

[53:02] statewide concern. And so the legislature has created the UC

[53:06] system, the CSU system, the community college system to serve

[53:09] their various functions. And we would need to carefully, uh,

[53:13] respect the different, uh, governance structures and legal frameworks in

[53:20] drafting the joint powers agreement. Um, but really any of

[53:23] the models are going to require whoever the partners are

[53:26] to come in and start negotiating and figure out what

[53:29] their places are, how they want the structure to look,

[53:32] um, but yeah, those are excellent points. Thank you. Any

[53:38] other clarifying questions. Dr. Gueda and then member Malcolm. Thank

[53:44] you. Thank you, Chair Falcon. I have a number of

[53:46] clarifying questions. And I don't know if the necessary an

[53:49] answer at this point, but when, um, when, uh, considering

[53:53] our contemplating a JPA were exoficio members part of the

[53:57] consideration in terms of Mexican university representation. So I understand

[54:03] the rules in place about participation of foreign nationals. Um,

[54:07] but I was wondering if that was part of the

[54:09] contemplation is exoficial members. The other question that I had

[54:14] was, um, I understand that sometimes not profits are able

[54:17] to have less than a majority of interested members from

[54:21] another entity, i. e. a JPA. So that also a

[54:25] contemplation in terms of would there be a possibility to

[54:27] have an individual number of individuals who do not constitute

[54:32] a majority that are still able to be members of

[54:35] both the JPA and the 501c3. So the question of

[54:40] overlap institutional overlap would be kind of a question. That

[54:44] they're one that given some of the universities involved, I

[54:48] think is an important matter to also contemplate his geography.

[54:52] I believe we're really focused on our by national region.

[54:55] And so I do think that there's something to be

[54:58] said for universities that are located within the Binational Region.

[55:02] Again, I understand there's, there's others, whether it be Unam

[55:05] or whether it be others in LA that are interested.

[55:09] But for me, I think it's important that we maintain

[55:11] the Binational Aspect of what we're trying to establish. And

[55:15] then I have a number of funding questions about what

[55:17] would happen. And what are the methods to resolve disputes?

[55:22] It's really kind of starting to get into the weeed.

[55:23] But what would happen if interinstitutional disputes were to arise?

[55:27] So, um, no, we did not contemplate an exoficio position

[55:33] on the JPA board for a Mexican national. We could.

[55:39] I think it would get complicated because the point of

[55:42] a California joint powers authority is to have California public

[55:47] agencies participating and keep the sort of, um, personality of

[55:52] a state public agency. And it might, you know, I

[55:56] haven't frankly looked into exoficio seats, uh, into a JPA,

[56:01] but we're happy to do that. And I'm happy to

[56:02] explore that. Um, we thought it would be sort of

[56:06] more meaningful to the Mexican partners or Binational Partners to

[56:12] have something like a nonprofit that they could actually run

[56:16] and control. Um, instead of having, because of course JPAs

[56:21] would require either Bagley keen or brown X compliance, public

[56:25] meetings. They could have a spot, a standing item on

[56:28] the agenda for reports. It'd probably be appropriate for that.

[56:31] And that might seem a little bit more meaningful than

[56:34] a nonvoting position. Um, we did not explore having a

[56:39] JPA minority on the nonprofit board. We did talk about

[56:42] what that board could look like. And the reason that

[56:45] happens often when a public agency forms a nonprofit for

[56:50] various charitable purposes, they staff it with a number of

[56:53] their own directors or staff persons. Um, that's a little

[56:57] bit farther than where we're at now in terms of

[57:00] the, you know, that's something that would be discussed by

[57:02] between the partners to see if that's something that's important.

[57:05] Um, and so it's certainly something that could happen. Um,

[57:09] there's nothing that precludes it. It's just a matter of

[57:12] what appetite the partners that are involved have. Um, and

[57:18] then with respect to the binational participation, you know, hugely,

[57:22] hugely important, uh, and really central to all the conversations

[57:26] that staff has been having and what makes us different,

[57:29] what would make this UDCV different, um, is the Binational

[57:32] participation, which is why we tried to give special consideration

[57:36] to the nonprofit option as either the entity that would

[57:39] operate the site or at least a partner entity that

[57:42] would participate in the site to allow, um, Mexican and

[57:46] to draw more participation from Mexican public universities, private universities

[57:51] partners. You know, that's something that the nonprofit could do

[57:54] that, for example, the JPA couldn't do is involve private

[57:56] institutions, not just public institutions. So all of that was

[58:00] given significant weight as we came to the recommendations. Great.

[58:06] I remember Malcolm. Yes, I have a question really to

[58:12] the city manager, City Chilvesta. On this issue. And I'll

[58:19] do respect to this great committee. The city owns the

[58:24] land. The city needs to, um, and has other authorities.

[58:32] As a charter city that you talked about bonding that

[58:35] general law cities doesn't have. So JPA. On some things

[58:41] aren't necessary. But I'm, I'm worried about as long as

[58:45] the city's happy, I'm okay. But we're really creating, or

[58:53] discussing entities. To go out and discuss what we're going

[58:58] to do and how we're going to do it. And

[59:03] yet the biggest benefactor has one vote out of. How

[59:07] many. And, um, should there be some type of, it's

[59:14] handag, we can call different cities, can call weighted vote

[59:19] or something. Are you happy or satisfied with the direction

[59:23] we're going for the protection of your constituents. Well, I

[59:29] think what we've discussed so far is really the structure

[59:32] and laying out the different options. Um, with the recommendation

[59:36] that they're going to be presenting with the JPA and

[59:39] the potential 501c3, I think that that properly protects the

[59:44] city's interest as the property owner. That is our role

[59:49] here. We are the, we are the owner. We are

[59:51] the advocate. Um, but we also are not in the

[59:54] business of running a university. And we recognize that that

[59:56] is not, um, our strength. And so it is important

[59:59] to us to bring in the academic partners as the

[1:00:04] organization does mature. And so I think that's a lot

[1:00:06] of why you're hearing this concept of an organizational maturity

[1:00:10] model and having the right structure at the right time

[1:00:14] for what's in front of us. And so, um, right

[1:00:16] now we're very comfortable with what's being proposed. Um, but

[1:00:20] it's also, um, you know, really, that's part of the

[1:00:23] discussion here for the task force and to get that

[1:00:26] feedback. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for the question

[1:00:30] and jumping in, remember Alan as city manager for the

[1:00:34] city. Um, yes, member incarnation. So I'm going to build

[1:00:39] off of task member Malcolm's question because it sparked one

[1:00:45] that I wrote down as well. Um, earlier we talked

[1:00:47] about in the land use presentation, the university innovation district

[1:00:52] versus the first phase, which is the university district, the

[1:00:56] 35 acres. And so I keep having, and it could

[1:01:01] be, you know, my problem. Um, ambiguity on this task

[1:01:07] force scope is a task force planning a governance or

[1:01:12] making a recommendation on a governance entity. For the first

[1:01:17] phase, which is the 35 acres, where we being asked

[1:01:21] to create a recommendation on the governance entity for the

[1:01:26] UID, which you made me think of, um, member Malcolm

[1:01:32] because that is seems like an encroachment on cities purview.

[1:01:37] Um, so I'm just going to put that out there.

[1:01:40] No answer needed. But I do, um, I'm hearing, um,

[1:01:48] if the legal entity of the, um, governance structure, I'm

[1:01:55] not hearing, I'm hearing questions and comments and are wonderful

[1:01:59] student trustee made of public comment. Um, if membership was

[1:02:04] contemplated, because I'm not seeing that in here. And the

[1:02:08] questions about, you know, majority membership on a JPA for

[1:02:13] a landowner or exofficio membership. And I think also about

[1:02:19] what member Moore said and the different institutions having different

[1:02:24] shared governance and institutional cultures. And also centralized institutions and

[1:02:31] meeting their central body to even approve the participation on

[1:02:37] a governance structure. And so in the contemplation of all

[1:02:43] of the recommendations, membership, um, was that contemplated. I didn't

[1:02:50] see that in the recommendations or the discussion. And then

[1:02:53] I think about voting structures. We've talked about who votes.

[1:02:57] What would that voting structure look like? And what is

[1:02:59] the authority of the voting structure? Would certain people have

[1:03:03] different. We talked about weighted votes. Um, so I'm just

[1:03:06] curious if that was contemplated. And if it was, maybe

[1:03:11] you can share with the task force more about what

[1:03:14] was contemplated and what was thought about. Sure. I mean,

[1:03:18] part of the beauty of the JPA model is that

[1:03:20] all of that is discussed and decided when you draft

[1:03:24] the joint powers agreement. So would that be included though?

[1:03:30] And that's what we're tasked with is providing a recommendation

[1:03:33] to the legislator. So if we go with a joint

[1:03:37] task force with a nonprofit so that we want to

[1:03:40] include my national, would this task force include any of

[1:03:46] those levels of details? Would we be tasked with having

[1:03:49] that discussion here in an open meeting and being able

[1:03:51] to have that background so that we can contemplate whether

[1:03:56] we would include that in our recommendation. What level of

[1:04:01] detail we would include, would we consider including it. I

[1:04:04] think that's a determination for the task force, but I,

[1:04:08] my initial answer is no. The mission of the bill

[1:04:13] is to recommend a governance structure that government structure could

[1:04:18] be a joint powers authority with the nonprofit partner to

[1:04:22] complement the Binational component with those details to be sorted

[1:04:25] out, A, once we have partners. I mean, because what

[1:04:29] you don't want is to recommend something as a task

[1:04:32] force. That scares folks away or precludes folks from even

[1:04:38] having a discussion about whether or not they want to

[1:04:40] participate. So you have to really find that balance between

[1:04:44] over prescribing and under prescribing. So my gut, and I

[1:04:48] know Marlene and Marty are probably itching the talk too,

[1:04:51] is to say, you know, you, you, the recommendation is

[1:04:55] for the structure. And then depending on how the legislature

[1:04:59] responds, how's this task force response? You would then find

[1:05:02] your partners and have those discussions. Is a JPA something

[1:05:06] you'd entertain. Um, and if so, what are the voting?

[1:05:12] Are we talking about five member board? We talked about

[1:05:14] a 10 member board. Are we talking about weighted voting?

[1:05:17] Are we talking about one vote for each person talking

[1:05:19] about exofficeo members? Those discussions happen once you have partners.

[1:05:25] And once you have buy - in, go ahead, Marlene.

[1:05:28] I know you want to chime in too. Because we're

[1:05:30] getting into the next one. If I may chair Falcons.

[1:05:34] Yes. Thanks for judgment. So these are all great questions.

[1:05:37] And yes, we are in getting into the recommendations where

[1:05:40] the some of the detail. But I think it's really

[1:05:42] important to reinforce that you're asking really good questions. And

[1:05:47] the complexity of governance is that the layers. And layers

[1:05:51] of the degree to details like the questions about, we

[1:05:55] awaited votes and all of that. There's a time and

[1:05:57] place for those discussions. Right now we're at the very

[1:06:00] beginning. And we're looking at broader frameworks. And that's why

[1:06:03] legal frameworks knowing what they can and can't do is

[1:06:06] important. So if I may, I think that a lot

[1:06:08] of those questions can be answered. And if they can't

[1:06:10] be answered today, at least it'll be noted where in

[1:06:14] the process they will be appropriately answered. Thank you for

[1:06:17] the reminder. So, um, if, if we can reserve our

[1:06:20] questions right now. Uh, for clarification, the discussion questions are

[1:06:25] really, really juicy. And I think we need to, um,

[1:06:28] resurface those during discussions so we can get to the

[1:06:30] next presentation. But I do want to pin that one

[1:06:36] question from, from, uh, Dr. Carnesun about the scope, um,

[1:06:42] on the UID versus UDCV. I don't want to say

[1:06:45] verses. But defining what it is at this task force

[1:06:49] really needs to hone home in on, um, and understanding,

[1:06:53] you know, how big or how, how constrained that we

[1:06:57] need to. Yes, exactly. So I don't know if that

[1:07:00] we can table that for the discussion, but if you

[1:07:02] can return to the podium and address that, that would

[1:07:08] be great. Absolutely. Happy to. And again, the short answer

[1:07:11] is depending on the structure you choose. If you choose

[1:07:14] a joint powers agreement as a recommended structure, the JPA

[1:07:17] contract can do it all. Like it can tell you

[1:07:20] who's the principal act, what law are you following? What

[1:07:24] powers are you going to have or not have? Um,

[1:07:28] who are going to be the parties? How are you

[1:07:29] going to vote? How are you going to make decisions?

[1:07:32] All of that is laid out in the contract itself.

[1:07:34] Um, but I'll, um, I'll hand it over to Marty

[1:07:37] so she can get it. Thank you, Mr. Cho. Appreciate

[1:07:40] your presentation. Um, we do have our next, uh, presenter

[1:07:47] brimner, uh, from policy solutions. All right. Good morning task

[1:07:54] force members. I'm Jake Bremer. I'm one of the consultants

[1:07:56] helping support this project. Um, and what I'll be doing

[1:07:59] is providing an overview of some of the research that

[1:08:02] was in your background materials as it related to other

[1:08:05] models that we've seen across the country. We've been trying

[1:08:08] to research what we can learn from instances where, um,

[1:08:12] institutions have already come together around shared facilities or other

[1:08:15] ways of, um, expanding or extending resources through collaboration.

[1:08:26] And I'll just pull my slides first. Okay. Um, and

[1:08:29] actually I'm very appreciative that you just started this conversation

[1:08:33] because what we'll do here is actually now show through

[1:08:36] some of these case studies what shared decision making has

[1:08:39] looked like in these instances where you're bringing partners together,

[1:08:42] um, today I'm going to just have time to touch

[1:08:43] on three of the models that we researched. But what

[1:08:46] I thought I would do first is just give you

[1:08:48] a sense of the breath of the different models that

[1:08:51] exist across the country. There are models that differ in

[1:08:54] terms of their programmatic or their ultimate objectives, the kinds

[1:08:58] of students that they're serving, the types of institutional partners

[1:09:02] that they're bringing together, whether a city is one of

[1:09:05] the active participants in that. And of course, that then

[1:09:08] suggests different legal structures. So you just heard from Adriana

[1:09:11] about what those look like. We have almost all of

[1:09:13] those, um, represented here in terms of the examples that

[1:09:16] we found nationally, um, and then what that means for

[1:09:19] their shared decision making structures, their board compositions, those all

[1:09:22] really very widely as well. One thing I will note

[1:09:25] as a disclaimer, there wasn't a JPA example that we

[1:09:28] found nationally. But with that being said, there are certainly

[1:09:31] examples of where local city has been a catalyst and

[1:09:34] has been a really active partner in making these kind

[1:09:37] of projects happen and staying involved as the project matures.

[1:09:41] Um, so with that for the sake of time, I'll

[1:09:43] just dive into one of those examples, um, of where

[1:09:46] cities been really active in driving a project. In Denver,

[1:09:49] Colorado. So in Denver, Colorado, you have an example of

[1:09:52] where really for years, um, as I'm sure folks from

[1:09:55] the city of Chulivistic can relate to, locally about the

[1:09:59] benefits of bringing institutions together at a shared campus. There

[1:10:04] were strategic proactive zoning and a neighborhood that had been

[1:10:06] identified as really suitable for that kind of facility. And

[1:10:10] ultimately through a combination of policy action at the local,

[1:10:13] the state, and in this case, even the federal level,

[1:10:16] um, they brought that, um, chip fruition in the 60s

[1:10:19] and 70s. Um, ultimately after receiving those funds and local

[1:10:23] bond measure that was approved, um, the state of Colorado

[1:10:26] defined a statutory entity, which is the Aurora higher education

[1:10:30] center that exists today. It brings together three different public

[1:10:34] institutions, three different, um, campuses from various statewide higher education

[1:10:40] systems. And this statutory, um, language also defined objectives for

[1:10:46] what that collaboration would look like. So it required that

[1:10:49] those institutions agree to aligning their calendars agreed to coordinating

[1:10:54] on scheduling things that really have a material impact on

[1:10:57] the student experience, particularly when you have a community college

[1:11:01] and students that are working to transfer from the two

[1:11:03] gear to the four years that have space there. Colorado

[1:11:07] state law also defined the governing board. Um, that governing

[1:11:10] board's composed of the three CEOs for each of those

[1:11:13] institutions. And then each of the gut statewide governing boards

[1:11:17] has one appointee that serves on the board for the

[1:11:21] Aurora Higher Education Center. Students and faculty each have one

[1:11:26] representative. So the committee that includes faculty and students from

[1:11:30] across the three institutions, each of those committees name one

[1:11:33] representative for their constituency that serves on the governing board.

[1:11:37] There is actually ledge to the earlier comment. There was

[1:11:39] legislation that gave them a vote that didn't, um, they

[1:11:42] didn't have one at first. Um, and then the governor

[1:11:45] of Colorado has three appointees that serve on the board

[1:11:48] as well. They have to be Denver area residents. Um,

[1:11:51] to an earlier question that came up from Dr. Guede.

[1:11:55] There is actually language in Colorado state law that addresses

[1:11:57] how to resolve disputes with institutions and instances when the

[1:12:02] same system, so the governing board appointee in the CEO

[1:12:06] both have not voted in the majority on a decision

[1:12:08] on the board. If there's this instance where you have

[1:12:10] one institution that is really holding out from an action,

[1:12:14] the majority of the gubernatorial appointees have to be an

[1:12:17] agreement with that action for it to move forward. So,

[1:12:21] um, some example here of what that can look like

[1:12:23] when you have public institutions and this statutory entity defined

[1:12:26] in Colorado law that's helping coordinate their efforts. Okay. So

[1:12:32] now to the other side of the spectrum, this is

[1:12:35] a nonprofit consortium - based model just up the road

[1:12:38] in Claremont. The Claremont College's consortium brings together seven separate

[1:12:45] standalone institutions. They're all independent, but they allow for students

[1:12:49] to cross register across the institutions. Um, this is not

[1:12:52] only a consortium, but they've actually created their own nonprofit

[1:12:55] entity that holds land and provides services back to the

[1:12:59] member institutions. They charge institutions based on a cost sharing

[1:13:03] formula that the board of the nonprofit itself develops. That

[1:13:08] board does have three independent representatives that serve on the

[1:13:12] board. They are not affiliated with any of the institutions.

[1:13:15] But then each of the member institutions have two representatives

[1:13:18] that serve on the board along with the CEO of

[1:13:20] the nonprofit itself, which is called the Claremont College Services.

[1:13:25] Interestingly, the Claremont Colleges also have a constitution. Uh, this

[1:13:29] constitution defines the scope of what the board can handle

[1:13:33] versus what a council of presidents can handle. So a

[1:13:36] large majority of issues are actually resolved amongst the institutional

[1:13:39] partners themselves, but there are reserved matters that are higher

[1:13:43] stakes. So issues around debt issues around land issues around

[1:13:46] enrollment caps that are reserved for action by the full

[1:13:50] board of directors, the constitution for the colleges also defines

[1:13:55] vote thresholds, um, it requires majority vote for some issues.

[1:13:59] And then on some of those more sensitive matters, it

[1:14:01] requires a super majority, two - thirds vote of all

[1:14:04] of the board members. And in some cases, even ratification

[1:14:07] by the governing boards of each of the member institutions

[1:14:10] themselves. So again, something like enrollment caps really sensitive for

[1:14:14] each of those member institutions when they're sharing space. So

[1:14:20] now I'll go to my third and my last example

[1:14:22] here before I get to some conclusions from across this

[1:14:25] research medical center of the Americas is a project out

[1:14:29] in El Paso that the city was really active and

[1:14:32] responsible for driving. In fact, the city had identified an

[1:14:37] area that already had some post - secondary educational institutions

[1:14:42] or extension facilities, um, and healthcare facilities. And what it

[1:14:46] wanted to do was really grow that into something that

[1:14:49] could serve the broader border community, but also could become

[1:14:52] an industry cluster. So not just, uh, access to hospitals

[1:14:56] and to care, but biotech research, medical device design and

[1:15:00] manufacturing, things where there's already a lot of cross -

[1:15:03] border, um, trade that's involved. So the city, not only

[1:15:07] zoned accordingly and identified this, um, part of its community

[1:15:11] to facilitate this kind of development. But it found an

[1:15:14] external partner, um, what's now the MCA holding company and

[1:15:18] its nonprofit, the Enscape Foundation. It sold a fraction of

[1:15:22] the land. So not all of the land that's part

[1:15:24] of this broader district, but a small portion of it

[1:15:27] sold the land to the holding company. It also, um,

[1:15:30] committed to providing an annual appropriation through the city budget.

[1:15:34] It's about 2. 8 or 3 million dollars depending on

[1:15:36] the year. In exchange for this holding company structure, and

[1:15:41] I'll talk more about that in a moment, um, to

[1:15:43] commit to reaching certain deliverables, um, things like construction of

[1:15:47] this incubator space that's on the slide. This is called

[1:15:49] the Cardwell collaborative. It was one of the things that

[1:15:52] this entity had to commit to constructing in order to

[1:15:55] not only hold the land on which it's built, but

[1:15:57] to receive this funding. The holding companies also responsible for

[1:16:01] facilitating the development of the broader district and really through

[1:16:05] a coordination role with partners. It doesn't own that land

[1:16:07] doesn't do the construction itself directly. But through these various

[1:16:11] subsidiaries underneath the holding company, it's able to bring partners

[1:16:14] together and find out what they need in terms of

[1:16:16] space and facilities. So one really interesting example, uh, one

[1:16:20] of the subsidiaries is focused on facilitating biotech research. It

[1:16:24] actually has revenue generating capability that then can be reinvested

[1:16:27] back into the project more broadly. Um, this governing board,

[1:16:31] very different from the others that we, um, just highlighted.

[1:16:35] This governing boards really composed of real estate development finance

[1:16:38] and healthcare industry professionals. There are non - voting institutional

[1:16:43] representatives from the city, from healthcare facilities, um, from educational

[1:16:49] institutions, including their Mexican university counterpart on the other side

[1:16:53] of the border and even a New Mexico state university

[1:16:56] that does a lot of research partnerships with the center.

[1:17:01] So now, um, just to conclude and let you get

[1:17:04] back to your discussion about what this means for our

[1:17:06] work here, um, shoe libista. Of course, as we heard

[1:17:10] earlier, there isn't a single model that you can just

[1:17:12] copy and paste into the unique context and the unique

[1:17:15] opportunity that you have in true livista today. But I

[1:17:19] think from these three examples, but certainly from the others

[1:17:21] that we didn't have time to cover today, we can

[1:17:24] learn a lot about the elements that we should be

[1:17:26] considering for how we leverage this project to align with

[1:17:30] community needs and to support students in the workforce in

[1:17:33] South County and the cross - border community more broadly.

[1:17:36] So at Aurorea and Claremont, we see that they really

[1:17:39] have clarity of scope for the kinds of decisions that

[1:17:42] are within the board's prerogative or other vehicles that might

[1:17:46] allow the academic, institutional partners to work on those more

[1:17:51] quickly or more nimbly or within existing governance structures, as

[1:17:54] we heard earlier. So Claremont Colleges, think of those really

[1:17:57] clear boundaries for issues that are for the board versus

[1:18:00] issues that the council of presidents can take on. The

[1:18:04] medical centers of the Americas, this interesting structure, this holding

[1:18:08] company with nonprofit, programmatically focused subsidiaries really creates opportunities that

[1:18:13] might not be available to other structures based on identifying

[1:18:18] revenue and trying to help facilitate, bringing that into the

[1:18:21] project, uh, Aurorea and MCA. What I wanted to note

[1:18:24] here as well. And both of these instances, you had

[1:18:27] policy action, not only investment, but statutory action in some

[1:18:31] cases or defining terms of a contract agreement that really

[1:18:35] allowed those local communities to define the goals for the

[1:18:38] projects. And then finally, um, what you see across all

[1:18:42] of these examples is the need to ensure there's a

[1:18:45] balance in centering, independent, um, voice and focus on the

[1:18:49] good of the project and for what the project's doing

[1:18:52] for the local community with that institutional input. And there

[1:18:56] are different ways of doing that, whether that's through looking

[1:18:58] at board composition, looking at other vehicles. We'll talk more

[1:19:01] about in the recommendation section where you can facilitate that

[1:19:04] conversation amongst the academic partners, um, while also still allowing

[1:19:08] abort to have that prerogative oversight governance issues. Um, so

[1:19:12] I'll leave it there for now so you can move

[1:19:14] forward with your agenda, but certainly welcome any questions. Thank

[1:19:17] you. Thank you. Any clarifying questions, Only. For Mr. Brimner.

[1:19:24] Okay. Thank you very much. Next set of, uh, presentations

[1:19:30] on the Binance Roundtable report, Dr. Joel Pilco, director of

[1:19:35] Binance and International Programs for Southwestern College, as well as

[1:19:39] Dr. Carlos Garcia, whose vice president of institutional relations at

[1:19:44] Cetis University. Good morning. Buenos días. Thank you for the

[1:19:49] opportunity to speak before this task force. Before we get

[1:19:53] into our recommendations from the Binance National Roundtime tables, I

[1:19:57] want to show something with you. Between 96 and 97.

[1:20:03] Of non - time ago, our student, as I was

[1:20:06] from college. And to continue my education, I have to

[1:20:09] move. Out of this area. At the time I lived

[1:20:12] in parabox actually. And my parents lived at the end

[1:20:17] of Palmar Street. I didn't have the opportunity to continue

[1:20:20] my education here. And today I serve as students who

[1:20:26] are making the same decisions. So the work that you're

[1:20:29] doing in creating this opportunities is applaudable. And thank you

[1:20:34] for doing that for our thousands of students who need

[1:20:37] to make those decisions. My coagulacia were asked to share

[1:20:42] the recommendations from the Binance tables. And before I do

[1:20:47] that, I want to share with you what's happening in

[1:20:50] the binational region already. And I can tell you that

[1:20:53] we've been very busy. Universities on both sides of the

[1:20:57] border, we've been working on three very specific pillars. Access,

[1:21:02] mobility, and belonging. Access through programs such as AB 91,

[1:21:08] which we're going to discuss later. We've been working on

[1:21:11] MOUs. We've been working on different options to give the

[1:21:16] students the opportunity to study in both sides of the

[1:21:19] border. Typically, it's through an exchange program. Typically, those type

[1:21:23] of activities. As that's being working great. And I think

[1:21:26] we've been doing a lot more than that, such as

[1:21:28] conferences like the reboarder conference by San Diego State University.

[1:21:33] The other element that we are really concentrating on is

[1:21:37] mobility. What does it mean for the student who lives

[1:21:41] across the border to cross every single day. And have

[1:21:45] to come to school. Likely that is working. Since April

[1:21:49] this year, through our collaboration that includes US customs and

[1:21:56] border protection, cells in college, San Diego is the university.

[1:22:00] And you see San Diego, lane for students at the

[1:22:04] San Isidro and Otay Border for entries. That lane saves

[1:22:10] students hundreds of hours every year. They're crossing the border

[1:22:16] in 10 to 15 minutes instead of two, three, four

[1:22:19] hours every day. But I want you to think about

[1:22:21] that. We did a math. Student is saving 380 plus

[1:22:27] hours in two semesters by using that lane. That is

[1:22:31] 16 days of life giving back to the student. What

[1:22:35] will you do with that time. Our students are studying

[1:22:39] more, spending time with family. Sleeping a little more, probably.

[1:22:45] That comes to write. So that's what we're doing in

[1:22:48] terms of mobility. Southwestern college has been partnered with settings

[1:22:52] to teach our courses in Tijuana. So the students don't

[1:22:55] have to cross the border. We're doing a lot of

[1:22:57] creative stuff to make sure that we meet the students

[1:23:00] where they are. And lastly, belonging. In the last few

[1:23:04] years, we have been very careful in giving the students

[1:23:09] a sense of identity. By national students are bilingual, by

[1:23:14] cultural. They have skills that are resilient, flexible. And they

[1:23:19] truly understand what it means to cross the border, change

[1:23:22] your mind completely. And behave the way we do things

[1:23:26] in the US. And then at night, they go back

[1:23:28] to Mexico to do so. But we've been doing this

[1:23:32] in silence in a way. For instance, Southwestern had an

[1:23:36] MMOU with cities. SDU has an MOU with who I

[1:23:40] would say. And so on and so forth. And that's

[1:23:43] been great. But we needed to come together to do

[1:23:47] something even more meaningful for those students. And that is

[1:23:51] the creation of the Kalibaha Higher Education Consortium, which since

[1:23:56] December, 2025 is helping us have a space to have

[1:23:59] this conversations altogether. And you asked why we're doing that.

[1:24:04] Because we have data and some of it is on

[1:24:06] the screen. Data that says that we need to produce

[1:24:10] professionals in very specific areas right away. And that's what's

[1:24:14] happening in the Binational region. And with the partnerships that

[1:24:17] we have in right now. I'm going to invite my

[1:24:20] partner here, Dr. Garcia, to speak about the first recommendation.

[1:24:29] Thank you, Dr. Pilko. Morning, everyone. Um. Chair five com

[1:24:38] members of the task force, higher education colleagues, committee partners

[1:24:43] and members of the public. Thank you for being here

[1:24:46] and for being part of this important conversation. The question

[1:24:50] before us today is the one that was stated in

[1:24:56] the invitation for this meeting. How should the universities show

[1:25:04] the base to be governed as it develops from vision

[1:25:07] to reality? That question matters because UDC beam is intended

[1:25:12] to expand educational opportunities strengthening economic mobility, prepare talent for

[1:25:18] the careers of tomorrow. And build new by national education

[1:25:23] research and workforce partnerships. I'm going to have some slides

[1:25:27] on the screen. We're not necessarily going to delve into

[1:25:30] them. Those are going to be left behind for you.

[1:25:32] But I'm going to reference them as we move forward

[1:25:34] with this presentation. Our governance recommendations do not begin with

[1:25:42] a legal structure. They begin with a guiding document that

[1:25:45] UDCB addition and design principles. That distinction is important. These

[1:25:52] principles are not academic. They are not abstract aspirations. They

[1:25:57] were written to define the conditions that feature decisions on

[1:26:01] land use, governance, financing, partnership and operations should make possible.

[1:26:07] In other words, these principles give us a test. In

[1:26:12] that test is as we move towards implementation, are we

[1:26:15] actually building the institution that we set where we're going

[1:26:19] to build. This is how we approach the recommendations. If

[1:26:27] EDCB is indeed to be a friction - free by

[1:26:31] national by design adaptive and accountable financially sustainable and become

[1:26:38] an ecosystem of partners, then its governance must create the

[1:26:42] capacity to deliver on those outcomes. The recommendations are therefore

[1:26:48] not a separate technical exercise. They are the implementation pathway

[1:26:52] for the principles of this operating institution. One recommendation, it's

[1:27:02] specifically important to UDCBs by national identity. The creation of

[1:27:06] a nonprofit organization that complements the joint powered authority. The

[1:27:12] JPA provides the public vehicle for land capital infrastructure and

[1:27:17] public accountability. The nonprofit creates a durable place for partner

[1:27:22] participation, including meaningful participation by Mexican higher education institutions. The

[1:27:30] reason for using both structures, its practical. One structure does

[1:27:36] not do both jobs equally well. At California JPA is

[1:27:41] well suited to public stewardship and financing. But it's not

[1:27:45] designed to sit Mexican public universities as full governance partners.

[1:27:50] A US nonprofit can provide that form of boys while

[1:27:54] also supporting philanthropy industry engagement and continuity across changing administrations.

[1:28:01] Last. So the nonprofit should not be considered as an

[1:28:06] atom. It should be looked at as one of the

[1:28:08] mechanisms that allows you to see being to become what

[1:28:13] its own principles describe, binational by design built as an

[1:28:18] ecosystem of partners and capable of reducing barriers rather than

[1:28:23] creating new ones. We are still in the information and

[1:28:27] learning stages. We do not need or to address nor

[1:28:32] do we have the answers for every single governance question

[1:28:35] or detailed today. But we can start to move forward

[1:28:38] in creating the architecture that allows the mission to become

[1:28:41] real. And that preserves the distinction by national character. From

[1:28:49] the beginning. Thank you very much. The second recommendation from

[1:28:56] the Binational Roundtable has to do with, if I can

[1:28:59] go back to the other slides, please. Recommend from this

[1:29:08] group is to establish our national hub or center. Within

[1:29:14] the University District of Visa Institutional Framework. Thank you.

[1:29:28] Our recommendation is that the governance entity identifies our national

[1:29:32] hub or center as an infrastructure requirement for the university

[1:29:37] district. It should serve as a non - profit operational

[1:29:41] home. And the one - stop shop through which a

[1:29:43] students can access coordinated services. These entities, this space, this

[1:29:48] building, whatever it will be, it will have the task

[1:29:50] to coordinate activities to develop policy. To develop partnerships not

[1:29:56] only between the are participating in institutions, but also outside

[1:30:00] workforce development, philanthropy, community, all of them, but also to

[1:30:05] share solutions, you know, between the estructure. Some of the

[1:30:10] core cognitive functions that we found would be very important

[1:30:13] for this space. Collaboration. Coordinated work between US and Mexican

[1:30:20] institutions. Partnerships reach out to workforce development entities, preach out

[1:30:27] to the industry and philanthropy. How they understand what we're

[1:30:31] trying to do. Remote barriers that can be legal policy

[1:30:35] administrative or administrative institutional obstacles. Also to continue working on

[1:30:43] access for these students. And finally, to define a priorities

[1:30:48] that the whole organization is going to have. But I

[1:30:51] won't speak a little bit about how we look like

[1:30:54] for the students. I think we're trying to do something

[1:30:57] different here. How would it look like if a binational

[1:31:01] student truly goes to a place where all these services

[1:31:06] will be available. Think about it this way. You have

[1:31:10] many universities there. With representatives. The information in one place.

[1:31:15] You have by national partners, you have research institutes. You

[1:31:18] have workforce partners in the same building. And the student

[1:31:21] has the opportunity to get information from each one of

[1:31:23] them. Including translation services. For an credential evaluations, financial assistance,

[1:31:30] based on immigration support, a clinical advising and so on

[1:31:33] and so forth, you can see on the screen. This

[1:31:36] concept has never been implemented before from a Binance. And

[1:31:41] we truly believe that if we're going to do something

[1:31:44] different with this project, we've got to take into consideration

[1:31:48] that these students need clear information from the get -

[1:31:51] go. And as I mentioned in my opening, I think

[1:31:55] they by natural round table clearly understands that we need

[1:31:58] to meet students where they are. And that is our

[1:32:01] second recommendation. Our last recommendation has to do with. The

[1:32:10] establishment of a limited AV91 pilot for the eligible public

[1:32:16] hiring institutions that are part of the UDCV. If you're

[1:32:20] not familiar with AD91, it is California legislation that allows

[1:32:25] students who live in the border region. To enroll in

[1:32:29] community colleges in San Diego and Peter Counties, pain in

[1:32:34] - state traditional rates. Earlier today through a comment, it

[1:32:38] was mentioned that there are about 30, 000 US citizens

[1:32:42] living in Tijuana and attending public primary and secularing schools

[1:32:47] in Tijuana. That number can be higher than that. It

[1:32:50] could be 45, 065, 000. Those students before 891 didn't

[1:32:56] have the opportunity to enroll in community colleges and pay

[1:33:00] in - state tuition fees. Therefore, there didn't go to

[1:33:03] school. Twin implementation of A - 1991 in the last

[1:33:07] three years at Southwestern College. We have been able to

[1:33:11] really change that. Sorry, that's my time on the first

[1:33:14] one. We have been able to really change that. And

[1:33:17] in the last three years, as you can see on

[1:33:20] the screen, we have been able to enroll over 300

[1:33:25] students. These semester, we just started this week. We have

[1:33:30] 358 students in the AB 91 program. And guess what?

[1:33:42] So the order 30, 045, 000 who are in the

[1:33:46] public system in Tijuana. Guess what they're going to do?

[1:33:50] They're going to come to us. And we need to

[1:33:52] be ready for that. This is students are very well

[1:33:56] connected. With their workforce needs of the region. You can

[1:34:00] see snapshot here as a full 2025 of the mergers

[1:34:06] these students are pursuing. And the top stem. One of

[1:34:11] the intents of the legislation was to promote STEM education.

[1:34:15] And there you go. That's what they want. And that's

[1:34:18] what they're going to go to working. But more interestingly,

[1:34:22] this student's academic performance. It's outstanding. The persistence rate from

[1:34:29] fall to spring. Was over 94 percent, which is much

[1:34:34] higher. Than the general student population at Southwest and College.

[1:34:43] The course completional rates were also. Well, we don't know.

[1:34:49] But we know that these students are truly commuted and

[1:34:52] resilient. What's happening today is that at some point, there's

[1:34:58] an enrollment cliff. You have these hundreds of students about

[1:35:03] 400 servers in college. Maybe 80, 100 at mesa college.

[1:35:08] Another 50 200 at Imperial Valley College who are going

[1:35:13] to continue their education with us. But they're going to

[1:35:16] point that they're going to be able to go to

[1:35:18] a state university because they do not feed the requirements

[1:35:22] for in - state tuition. That's why it's so important

[1:35:26] for these task force to consider to please consider something

[1:35:31] similar to AB 91 from the get - go. We

[1:35:35] as the task force to establish the decision - making

[1:35:41] process. So whoever sits on these non - profit JPA

[1:35:45] is able to push forward legislation that is going to

[1:35:49] help by national students attend colleges and universities in the

[1:35:53] US. And now we conclude the recommendations from the round

[1:35:57] tables. Thank you. Thank you, doctors Buchl and Garcia. Are

[1:36:02] there any clarifying questions from members. Okay. Seeing none, thank

[1:36:09] you. Um, I do not see any additional requests to

[1:36:14] speak from the public. So we are going to move

[1:36:16] on to the action items overview of state governance recommendations

[1:36:22] and calling back up Marty Alvarado. Okay. Let's get into

[1:36:27] it. Um. Excited to jump into the recommendations. You've heard

[1:36:31] a lot of content today that provides some framing for

[1:36:35] the recommendations and the different governance vehicles. I also want

[1:36:38] to thank our Binational Partners for making that connection between,

[1:36:42] um, the, uh, vision mission and defining characteristics. I could

[1:36:46] not have done it better myself. Uh, in terms of

[1:36:49] really trying to make sure that our governance recommendations land

[1:36:53] and finance recommendations down the road really are bringing that

[1:36:56] vision to life and or setting the path for bringing

[1:36:59] that vision to light, uh, to life, excuse me. And

[1:37:02] really, uh, centering students, uh, and the community as we

[1:37:07] as this body is making recommendations going forward. So I'm

[1:37:11] going to jump right into and try to move quickly

[1:37:14] here, uh, so question to make room for questions. So

[1:37:18] as we were developing the recommendations, the draft, very draft,

[1:37:22] something for you to engage with, uh, push back, provide

[1:37:25] feedback, uh, on this is that we, we really wanted

[1:37:29] to make sure that we're operating from a common framework

[1:37:31] or a common place of reference. And so there are

[1:37:34] three elements that we wanted to walk through, uh, the

[1:37:37] governance baseline, the maturity arc and two parallel tracks. So

[1:37:42] first, um, the governance baseline, again, I'm going to move

[1:37:47] quickly. These are three reference concepts. Let me back up

[1:37:50] three reference concepts. First, when we are talking about governance,

[1:37:54] what are we talking about? What does that mean? Because

[1:37:56] we hear a lot around decision making, but decision making

[1:37:59] is very nuanced at very specific to the decisions that

[1:38:03] need to be made. And those are many and complex

[1:38:06] given some of the earlier conversation around who gets to

[1:38:08] decide what is this going to look like. Right. So

[1:38:11] as this body is thinking about the recommendations in a

[1:38:15] report that is really at this early stage, we have

[1:38:18] to be thinking about what is it that we are

[1:38:20] trying to construct and in service of what. And it

[1:38:23] is in service of entities, organizations, bodies and vehicles that

[1:38:27] will facilitate policy, procedure and direct practice. That's the goal

[1:38:32] here. When we are thinking about governance, we are thinking

[1:38:34] about vehicles, entities, organizations that will facilitate the creation of

[1:38:39] policy, procedure, and practice. Think local policy. Little P, big

[1:38:44] P, all of the P's in between policy procedure practice.

[1:38:48] Okay. Uh, then we also wanted to get into the

[1:38:52] organizational maturity framework. Since I mentioned it earlier, I'm going

[1:38:55] to touch on it lightly here, but the goal of

[1:38:58] this is to really help us situate where UDCV is

[1:39:02] right now. Right. They are not at a mature operating

[1:39:05] stage. They are very much at the concept stage trying

[1:39:08] to move into formation. And so it's really about being

[1:39:11] able to understand the sequencing of decisions and how this

[1:39:14] group, uh, this task force is setting up the conditions

[1:39:18] for those future decisions down the road. And so, uh,

[1:39:22] what you see here are the, uh, this framework, this

[1:39:26] stages of framework. So we are at the concept stage

[1:39:29] really trying to position governance that moves the entity into

[1:39:32] the formation stage where the actual legal governance structure, uh,

[1:39:36] that policy, uh, procedure and practice decisions can begin to

[1:39:41] be formulated. It will move into an emerging stage where

[1:39:44] you actually begin to offer services for students and start

[1:39:48] testing this with active participants in a more comprehensive, deliberate

[1:39:52] way. Uh, sustainable, uh, where it is operationally stable and

[1:39:57] financially, uh, diversified. And then we get into a mature

[1:40:01] stage, really self - sustaining and focusing on evolution, uh,

[1:40:05] and maintaining relevancy. I think it's valuable to note for

[1:40:08] this body that as we were researching organizational maturity frameworks

[1:40:12] in order to bring you something today, um, we found

[1:40:16] a lot for startups, for businesses, even for nonprofits, a

[1:40:20] lot of research around organizational maturity within these types of

[1:40:25] entities, companies, et cetera. There were almost none for higher

[1:40:31] education. Right. We don't think about higher education as an

[1:40:37] evolving, maturing organization and having this type of maturity arc.

[1:40:42] We think of them as established. Right. Because they've been

[1:40:44] around typically for so long. And so I think it's

[1:40:47] really, really important for this body to be thinking about

[1:40:50] that as you are creating something new. You are in

[1:40:54] startup mode. Right. Honoring all the realities of the partner

[1:40:58] organizations that are going to be coming to the table,

[1:41:01] but really thinking about what does it look like for

[1:41:02] us to create a governance structure for something that is

[1:41:06] new that is going to be engaging these partners and

[1:41:09] is going to go through this maturity arc, Organizational Maturity

[1:41:13] Arc over its lifetime. Which again is not something that

[1:41:15] we typically see and or is talked about within the

[1:41:19] higher education realm, at least public higher education, maybe for

[1:41:23] the for - profits. Um, so hence the maturity framework.

[1:41:28] Uh, and then lastly, uh, the last concept that we

[1:41:30] want you to hold as we dig into the recommendations

[1:41:33] is really acknowledging and honoring that there are two parallel

[1:41:36] tracks for governance. There is the land use and operations

[1:41:42] and fund development capital building construction. All of those components.

[1:41:46] And then the academic programming. And those are two separate

[1:41:49] governance tracks because we wanted to deliberately account for what

[1:41:53] was surfaced earlier that each of the academic programs and

[1:41:56] institutions that will come to the table have their own

[1:41:58] existing government structures have accreditation requirements. There's a whole different

[1:42:02] layer to that that will need to be wrestled through,

[1:42:05] which is distinct from capital development, uh, land development, all

[1:42:10] of those pieces. So we just, we wanted to acknowledge

[1:42:12] that and make sure that the government structure recommendations accounted

[1:42:16] for those two parallel tracks operating simultaneously while also leaving

[1:42:21] space for the maturity of the framework for those to

[1:42:23] come together as needed going forward. Okay. Uh, so the

[1:42:29] last thing we wanted to note is that what the

[1:42:32] task force has to do today, uh, and going forward

[1:42:35] is really think about what does it mean for your

[1:42:37] governance structure to deliver what you need to date while

[1:42:40] also being set up for what needs to come as

[1:42:43] the enterprise matures. So what comes next. Okay. Uh, so

[1:42:49] to get into the recommendations, you've heard a lot of

[1:42:51] the reference points earlier. I'm not, I want to leave

[1:42:54] time for comments and question. And so just very quickly

[1:42:57] walking through these, uh, the recommendations, not in any particular

[1:43:01] order, but certainly modestly sequenced, uh, the draft is that

[1:43:06] we start with a JPA, as you heard earlier that

[1:43:09] really sets the legal infrastructure for the enterprise, uh, provide

[1:43:14] some grounding, uh, and brings preliminary partners to the table,

[1:43:19] uh, the development of or the selection of a nonprofit

[1:43:22] site organization as a recommendation really meant to, uh, at

[1:43:26] least at this stage conceptually manage the day to day,

[1:43:29] uh, allow for additional structures that facilitate, um, acquisition of,

[1:43:35] let's say philanthropic dollars and other, uh, financing efforts, um,

[1:43:39] we also included a recommendation around an academic advisory body.

[1:43:44] So again, accounting for those parallel tracks, well, the first

[1:43:46] two enterprises are really organized around the establishment of the

[1:43:51] infrastructure. The academic advisory board is really about, uh, creating

[1:43:55] the time and space for those decision points that need

[1:43:58] to happen around the academic enterprise. Going back to the

[1:44:02] vision document, really thinking about what are the conditions environments

[1:44:06] and expectations if we were to, uh, lean into this

[1:44:10] just - in - time lifelong learning infrastructure that we

[1:44:12] are envisioning for our chill ofista residents. Uh, and then

[1:44:18] fourth down the list, you see state authorizing legislation. We've

[1:44:21] noted this as a potential future complementary track because at

[1:44:25] this initial formation stage, it really is about setting up

[1:44:28] the infrastructure and then figuring out if and where policy

[1:44:34] state policy could actually be beneficial. Is it going to

[1:44:37] secure additional dollars for the enterprise commitment from the state

[1:44:42] for the enterprise that brings resources? Is it necessary for

[1:44:46] the education partners to have flexibility for the types of,

[1:44:50] uh, instruction that they might want to deliver or programming

[1:44:52] that they might want to deliver at the site? So

[1:44:55] what we're saying here and this recommendation is that that

[1:44:57] is on the table for future consideration, not a bygone

[1:45:01] conclusion at the initial stage. And that it really should

[1:45:04] be benefiting the enterprise and the students intended to be

[1:45:07] served through the enterprise, not just legislation for legislation's sake.

[1:45:11] And then lastly, as we've talked about a lot today,

[1:45:14] this recommendation around ensuring that there is equitable and meaningful

[1:45:18] participation by national partners in the governance infrastructure that is

[1:45:24] produced at the end or developed at the end. Decided

[1:45:27] at the end. So what you see here is a,

[1:45:30] um, I won't say a timeline, but sort of a

[1:45:34] signaling of how we would envision this moving across that

[1:45:38] organizational maturity framework arc. You'll see we've mentioned a few

[1:45:43] times that we're at the conception stage that we're really

[1:45:46] at the concept stage of this effort. And so you'll

[1:45:48] see examples of items that are actively in progress during

[1:45:52] this conception stage under state authorizing legislation, for example. We

[1:45:56] have this task force that was comprised or pulled together

[1:46:00] from legislation. Similarly under the academic advisory board, you'll see

[1:46:06] examples of things like partner MOUs that we are anticipating

[1:46:09] and have begun to move forward and different types of

[1:46:12] efforts under the concept stage. What you see as we

[1:46:15] transition into the formation stage. And again, know that these

[1:46:18] are not hard and fast cutoffs. That this will be

[1:46:22] evolving. It'll be fluid batooks in between. But we really

[1:46:25] see that development of the joint powers authority, uh, the

[1:46:29] establishment of the academic advisory board sort of happening early

[1:46:33] on. And then the development of that nonprofit organization maturing

[1:46:37] over the timeline of the enterprise, the full enterprise. You'll

[1:46:41] see the gray areas we want to note. There continue

[1:46:44] as needed. We don't know yet. Right. We don't know

[1:46:48] when and how and if they will continue to be

[1:46:50] needed and valuable for the enterprise. And so we have

[1:46:52] flagged those as continuing as needed, uh, and then ongoing

[1:46:57] across all stages is the Binational Partnership. So this gives

[1:47:00] you an idea of how we sort of have been

[1:47:04] conceptualizing how these recommendations would roll out as well as

[1:47:08] interplay Bitchs in between. One last visual for those who

[1:47:12] are visual learners or to make sense of the complexity

[1:47:16] of these recommendations is really seeing these JPA nonprofits working

[1:47:19] together at this initial stage, this advisory board, really feeding

[1:47:24] into those enterprises. And, uh, the other two supporting and

[1:47:30] caring through as we go. All right. I am going

[1:47:33] to stop talking and invite questions, comments or concerns. Thank

[1:47:40] you. Um, before we go to questions, are these presentations

[1:47:44] going to be available to all of us? Okay. Thank

[1:47:46] you. Okay. We have a question or comment from Dr.

[1:47:50] Tong. I was reading, uh, the information we received before

[1:47:59] the meeting. And this presentation is a little better. Uh,

[1:48:05] I think, uh, then the languages that were there in

[1:48:09] the PDF files, uh, on the academic advising board, languages,

[1:48:18] were a little too broad and ambiguous. Right in terms

[1:48:23] of partner institutions independence. And so, so as you know,

[1:48:31] some of these will definitely conflict with, uh, our standards

[1:48:38] and our, uh, faculty academic, uh, governance and sheer governance

[1:48:44] and accreditation requirements, right? Right. So we have to make

[1:48:47] sure that they're all, uh, pretty clear about that. You

[1:48:53] know, he's each institution obviously have exclusive. Authority and everything

[1:49:03] for research accreditation intellectual property, et cetera, et cetera. Right.

[1:49:07] So, so I just want to make sure that in

[1:49:09] the final language, we're pretty clear about those. Right. Absolutely.

[1:49:13] Absolutely. And we recognize it was a lot of information

[1:49:17] to hold. Right. What did the parallel tracks mean? What

[1:49:20] is this maturity framework mean? And how do these things

[1:49:22] come together? So through the slides, we were trying to

[1:49:25] really visualize, create a visualization of how all of this

[1:49:28] works together, uh, to create that vision for the future.

[1:49:32] But thank you absolutely. We have a question or comment

[1:49:35] from Dr. Moore. Thank you. And just to echo these

[1:49:40] comments. And following up. And that's, I think the next

[1:49:43] slide and also the previous slide, there was something about

[1:49:46] the academic advisory board not having authority. I'm not sure

[1:49:52] what that meant because it almost seems like the, um,

[1:49:55] nonprofit could veto the recommendations of the academic advising board.

[1:50:01] Yeah. So this is a great call out because technically

[1:50:04] legally. Let me say it that way. Legally. The advisory

[1:50:06] board does not have legal standing to make decisions. In

[1:50:10] these recommendations, and I'm not a lawyer, I do not

[1:50:13] play one on TV. So I am only referencing here

[1:50:17] that the JPA and the nonprofit are what carried legal

[1:50:20] authority for the enterprise. And so this is why in

[1:50:22] this next visual, what you see is the academic advisory

[1:50:26] board providing recommendations to those entities. Uh, I want you

[1:50:30] to keep in mind that, uh, we have the structure

[1:50:33] for those two have not been set. And so the

[1:50:36] extent to which, uh, institutions of higher education would be

[1:50:39] represented on the JPA and others that some of the

[1:50:42] safeguard that we are anticipating with the, uh, advisory board

[1:50:45] providing recommendations. But it does not carry legal authority. Any

[1:50:52] other questions? Yes. Clarification. It kind of builds on that

[1:50:55] question as far as I'm aware the precludes us from

[1:51:00] having overlapping membership amongst the different bodies so long as

[1:51:04] they don't constitute a majority unless I'm mistaken. So that

[1:51:08] might be a way for us to be able to

[1:51:09] have some type of voice and safeguard across the different

[1:51:13] bodies. Right. Correct. Okay. Got an affirm. Um, yes, member

[1:51:23] anguillano. Thank you again for this framework. Um, I also

[1:51:28] had to clarifying question on that academic advisory board. It's

[1:51:32] in the write - up. It talks about the partnerships

[1:51:35] with workforce development partners, corporate training. I think these are

[1:51:38] really important components of the educational ecosystem. People need a

[1:51:44] lot of different type of education, not one institution can

[1:51:47] meet the criteria over a lifetime of learning that we

[1:51:50] are envisioning seeing, you know, as a future unfold, AI

[1:51:54] is quicker. People need to be upskilled, reskilled moving up

[1:51:58] in their careers, um, and so I'm just curious. When

[1:52:03] we say academic advisory board, how much flexibility is that?

[1:52:08] And then how does that, I'm just having trouble also

[1:52:10] figuring out how that matches with the nonprofit and the

[1:52:13] JPEs. This is a great question and goes back to,

[1:52:17] uh, I'll start with the vision mission defining characteristic document.

[1:52:21] As we were putting together the recommendations, we're also thinking

[1:52:24] about what are some of the structures and, uh, the

[1:52:26] signaling of the composition that is going to, um, uh,

[1:52:31] invite and or meet that vision for the future of

[1:52:34] this UDCV enterprise. Um, I think one of the things

[1:52:37] that we wrestled with is terminology being accessible. So hence

[1:52:42] the earlier conversation around adjusting learning sector to, uh, lifelong

[1:52:46] learning infrastructure because it's accessible. So when we're talking academic

[1:52:50] advisory board, we're really trying to signal through the language

[1:52:52] that it is around the governance of the instruction or

[1:52:56] the academic enterprise of the, um, UDCV. Um, however, an

[1:53:02] alignment with the vision mission defining characteristics, part of that

[1:53:06] is really inviting in this more comprehensive concept of, uh,

[1:53:12] academic and instruction and academic enterprise, I should say. Given

[1:53:16] that we are leaning towards lifelong learning. So ensuring that

[1:53:19] there's be a access for the region while also inviting

[1:53:23] enterprises and activities and structures that will actually facilitate, um,

[1:53:27] this lifelong learning available resource. I think there's also, um,

[1:53:33] this interplay with the land use component as well, because

[1:53:36] you're creating a, um, trying to create an experience that

[1:53:41] is equivalent and or as meaningful as a residential experience

[1:53:45] without necessarily requiring the residential aspect of that. And so

[1:53:50] how do you leverage that, uh, the utilization of space

[1:53:53] that will look fundamentally different here on this enterprise than

[1:53:57] we might see on a traditional campus. And so trying

[1:53:59] to create space for in this advisory board, that thinking,

[1:54:03] um, across these various elements, not just how do we

[1:54:08] pick up instruction that we've been doing elsewhere and replanted

[1:54:12] here. Yeah, I'll just note that most of the research

[1:54:17] is moving towards lifelong learning infrastructure. You have the research

[1:54:20] from Stanford on the learning society. You have, um, the

[1:54:24] UCs moving to UCLA for life, ASUs, learning enterprise. There

[1:54:29] are a lot, a lot of research showing that institutions

[1:54:32] need to be ensuring that they're serving the students, not

[1:54:36] just at the beginning of their careers, but throughout their

[1:54:38] career. So I really think that that's an important element

[1:54:40] here. Great. Thank you. Any other clarifying questions? Yes. Dr.

[1:54:46] Grove. So I wonder if there is the possibility in

[1:54:51] the model of a nonprofit, which I think is really

[1:54:54] the direction we're going to, that, that some kind of

[1:54:58] shared governance model can be implemented there. One would be

[1:55:02] the academic side and the other one would be the

[1:55:04] administrative side. That's certainly how the University of California and

[1:55:09] the CSU is functions. And it would be very easy

[1:55:14] to then say, uh, well, this is how we function.

[1:55:18] Let's, we're, we're implementing the same model of shared governance.

[1:55:22] I understand nonprofits and the fact that you have a

[1:55:24] board. I don't think there's anything in nonprofit

[1:55:30] legislating. Maybe I'm wrong. Two boards. Although I think

[1:55:40] one board precedes the other. I don't remember all the

[1:55:43] rules regarding the two board model with one above the

[1:55:48] other. Or are they equals? But that really is how

[1:55:51] shared governance functions in the UC system, for example. And

[1:55:54] I think that instead of an academic advice, so did

[1:55:58] you consider this. That's really the question and the clarification

[1:56:00] that I wanted. Yeah. Uh, we did not. We did

[1:56:03] not consider implementing a shared governance infrastructure under the nonprofit.

[1:56:09] In large part because, uh, the nonprofit are starting assumption.

[1:56:14] Let me say this. We are starting assumption is that

[1:56:15] the UDCV is not accredited. It's not an accredited entity

[1:56:20] on its own that we would be pulling and leveraging

[1:56:22] the accrediting, uh, the accreditation from the partner institutions that

[1:56:27] will join. And so the shared governance enterprise really happens

[1:56:30] at the institutions that are participating, not necessarily within the

[1:56:35] UDCV infrastructure. And so that's, that was the starting assumption

[1:56:39] for this. But this is also bringing up a really

[1:56:43] important point that I want to make sure to highlight

[1:56:45] here, which is that feedback form similar to the one

[1:56:48] you receive for the vision mission, defining characteristics, uh, document

[1:56:53] will be going out to all of you. So that

[1:56:55] way you can continue to provide these types of feedback.

[1:56:58] These are drafts. So this type of a request should

[1:57:01] definitely continue to come in and we will continue to

[1:57:05] look at those. Thank you. Any other questions? Yes. Dr.

[1:57:10] I don't see Bye. And Dr. and Sivia, I don't

[1:57:17] think your mic is on. Um, the nonprofit boards that

[1:57:20] I've been a part of that are functional have been

[1:57:23] very, very small. The larger that you get on profit

[1:57:27] board, the less functional it gets. So I just, I'm

[1:57:31] popping board. You should probably have five to seven people,

[1:57:33] not more than that because it's just cumbersome in terms

[1:57:37] of decision making. And when you go any further than

[1:57:40] that, um, and I just, that's my, my, my two

[1:57:44] sides. Regardless. The, the other thing I want to highlight

[1:57:47] also is that again, going back to the maturity framework,

[1:57:51] we're really at that formation stage and thinking about what

[1:57:53] are those legal vehicles and entities that are going to

[1:57:55] be needed to position the institution. I'm going to point

[1:57:58] to the really valuable and important example of the, um,

[1:58:02] the hub, the binational hub as an illustration of this.

[1:58:06] Zero opinion on when we or another. But as an

[1:58:08] example, part of the, um, part of the rationale for

[1:58:12] the hub is that it doesn't currently exist, right? If

[1:58:15] you decide to put together a nonprofit organization as this

[1:58:20] entity, it may be that that's part of their charter.

[1:58:23] And so is it a hub or is it a

[1:58:25] branch of, uh, the responsibilities of the nonprofit organization? Right.

[1:58:29] So again, this is why we're trying to manage expectations

[1:58:32] in the recommendations. We're, we're not so defined of you

[1:58:36] have to build this thing, but you really have to

[1:58:38] build the conditions in the legal structures that will actually

[1:58:41] facilitate being able to get those things done in whatever

[1:58:45] form they take as this matures. So just as an

[1:58:48] illustration, no expectations, uh, opinion. Yes. Dr. Rakita. Thank you,

[1:58:55] Chair Falcon. More of a comment. I really want to

[1:58:59] say thank you to staff for having put together these

[1:59:01] frameworks because I think it definitely helps move the conversation

[1:59:04] forward and give this a real focused way of thinking

[1:59:07] about the questions before us. I also just want to

[1:59:10] invite all of us to be reminded that we all

[1:59:12] have our, our own perspectives and experiences, but we truly

[1:59:16] are building something that has not been built. Um, it's,

[1:59:20] it's new. It's, it's innovative. And to a degree, I

[1:59:24] think we all bring our experiences to build a better

[1:59:27] experience, a better institution for all of us in our

[1:59:30] community. But I think I would invite us to think

[1:59:32] that a little bit differently because we all have our

[1:59:35] experiences yet. We're building something different. A multi - institutional

[1:59:39] university campus, uh, as we saw is fairly unique. It's,

[1:59:42] it's not, uh, usually you have an established institution builds

[1:59:48] a satellite and then the satellite dang becomes, and I'm

[1:59:51] discussing the CSU San Marcos experience and other experiences. This

[1:59:55] is not that. We're really building something different. And so

[1:59:58] I would hope that we can think of a little

[2:00:00] bit of a different, be open to different concepts as

[2:00:04] we look at how we organize and structure this institution

[2:00:08] that will truly be one location with multiple institutions. And

[2:00:13] how do we build the right balance between central versus

[2:00:19] university specific? So we have quite a task. I think

[2:00:21] we're up to the question, but I do want to

[2:00:23] say thank you. Yes. Thank you. Um, so we are

[2:00:29] at the noon hour, um, just doing a time check

[2:00:33] here. And we started getting into the discussions, um, this

[2:00:38] is an action item, but I want to ask the

[2:00:43] task force members if we have enough to make some

[2:00:46] sort of action, um, I certainly want to open this

[2:00:50] up to discussion. And so I guess that, you know,

[2:00:55] as you are formulating your comments and questions, and I'm

[2:00:58] not sure what, until what time we have, can staff

[2:01:04] address how much time we have today. Um, I would

[2:01:09] defer to the task force members, um, but I will

[2:01:13] say that you will be receiving a Google doc, um,

[2:01:17] after this meeting, like the last one. So you can

[2:01:19] just online make your comments and send it directly to

[2:01:24] Marty, um, for, for consideration. And, uh, we know that

[2:01:28] we gave you a lot of to think about in

[2:01:31] this meeting. So we didn't really anticipate that you're all

[2:01:34] going to say, okay, let's march in the same direction

[2:01:36] that you might need some time to process. And that's

[2:01:39] totally acceptable. Um, you know, feel free to make any

[2:01:44] comments about, you know, where you have questions now if

[2:01:48] you'd like, but you can certainly do that on the

[2:01:49] Google comment form. And that'll all be taken in consideration.

[2:01:53] And then at our next meeting, similar to how we

[2:01:56] did a recap for this meeting to join the meetings,

[2:01:59] we will do a recap on the feedback and we'll

[2:02:03] take that feedback and integrate it as best we can

[2:02:07] and reserve a small portion of the next meeting to

[2:02:10] really try to see if we're getting closer to consensus

[2:02:14] on the direction that we want to take. Okay. Thank

[2:02:17] you. I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback. I think

[2:02:20] there's, it seems like there's benefit to us, um, having

[2:02:24] an open conversation, um, before we do that. And so

[2:02:27] if, if I could ask for the indulgence of the

[2:02:31] task force members to have a few more minutes for

[2:02:33] discussion, have to make it to the airport. Okay. All

[2:02:38] right. Well then Dr. Grava, thank you. And if you

[2:02:41] have any comments before you leave, no. Okay. Thank you.

[2:02:47] All right. Let's open it up for, for discussion. If

[2:02:50] anybody has any comments. Or maybe you don't, maybe you

[2:02:54] have recommendation. Yes. Dr. Encarnacion. Um, well, I want to

[2:02:59] echo what Dr. Gary said that this is a lot

[2:03:02] of work. And I want to thank staff because it's

[2:03:05] layered upon layered. And trying to make sense of something

[2:03:08] new that you're building as you're going is very difficult,

[2:03:13] but you did it very well. Um, I do want

[2:03:16] to go back to the question of whether our task

[2:03:20] is to plan a recommendation around the governance entity for

[2:03:24] phase one or the entire. Cause I think that changes

[2:03:27] a lot of how we think about this. Um, the

[2:03:31] consideration around an academic, I think the JPA and the

[2:03:35] nonprofit is I'm here and I feel like it's kind

[2:03:38] of where we're leaning to for what we're looking at.

[2:03:40] But that changes a lot if we're doing phase one

[2:03:43] versus the whole entity. And we've also talked about the

[2:03:49] need for academic advisory board, but also how we really

[2:03:54] see this as integrating for lifelong learning, whether you're skilling

[2:03:58] up or whether you're recently graduated high school student or

[2:04:03] you're a transfer for community college person who is community

[2:04:08] invested. We were on a webinar and someone said it's

[2:04:11] not placebound. It's somebody whose community invested. They're invested in

[2:04:14] their community, right? They need to be in their community.

[2:04:17] So your community invested student, but you want the same

[2:04:20] opportunities. You deserve the same opportunities. Um, so do we

[2:04:25] need to have just an academics on that advisory board?

[2:04:30] Or should we have some industry partners that we would

[2:04:32] want to be integrated with our academias so that we

[2:04:36] know that we have paid internships that our students could

[2:04:39] go, you know, seamlessly into maybe as they are also

[2:04:44] learning and getting their degrees. So just something to consider

[2:04:49] as well when we're thinking about all the different roles

[2:04:52] that folks play who will be in this space. Because

[2:04:56] in the end, we're here for our students, right? And

[2:04:59] our community members and our lifelong learners, whatever and whoever

[2:05:02] they are. Um, but again, going back to that, you

[2:05:06] know, phase one or the entire, because over the decades,

[2:05:11] I know I've been involved. And I know the city

[2:05:14] has a vision. And I want to be very respectful

[2:05:16] of the city's vision and their role. So yeah, I

[2:05:18] think if, if I can help explain that a little

[2:05:21] bit. So, um, we brought in the information about the

[2:05:25] first phase of development because it gave us an idea

[2:05:27] on the cost. And so that will help us when

[2:05:30] we start having the conversation on financing, right? Um, because

[2:05:34] we have a lot of unknowns and we don't really

[2:05:36] have the partners at the table. We don't, the only

[2:05:39] thing we know right now is what an initial phase

[2:05:42] can look like and how much that would cost, including

[2:05:45] the infrastructure. When you talk about governance first phase or

[2:05:49] the university district, my answer is more of it's still

[2:05:55] in this early phase of development. And that's what we

[2:05:58] are planning for and recommending for. It's early phase. In

[2:06:02] the future, it's really hard to plan for something where

[2:06:06] we don't even have anything stood up. The partners aren't

[2:06:09] at the table negotiating. I think what the government instruction

[2:06:12] looks like in the beginning has to be flexible enough

[2:06:15] for it to grow and evolve as well. But as

[2:06:18] a task force, we should be thinking just that phase

[2:06:21] one right now. Perfect. And with flexibility, obviously. Yeah. I

[2:06:26] mean, it's, it's, I'm sorry. But it is early development,

[2:06:29] right? I think we are planning for governance on the

[2:06:31] university innovation district. The university district in general, again, I

[2:06:38] think the first phase of development is just to give

[2:06:40] us an idea on cost of, of what it would

[2:06:43] be to develop a first site. But we are looking

[2:06:45] at governance throughout. It's, it's one place at the end

[2:06:48] of the day, um, but we are in this early

[2:06:52] concept going into formation stage. Perfect. And chair Falcon circle

[2:06:57] back to the item you put a pin in, which

[2:07:00] kind of corresponds with this. I'm going to just read

[2:07:03] straight from the, in terms of scope and what the

[2:07:06] role of this task force is with respect to governance,

[2:07:09] it's to identify and recommend potential governance structures for the

[2:07:15] mixed use intersegmental educational facility, including but not limited to

[2:07:19] consortia and other collaborative models. So really the role with

[2:07:23] respect to the deliverable for next year is identify and

[2:07:27] recommend potential government structures, not flesh them out, not identity,

[2:07:34] you know, and then the next stages will be identified

[2:07:36] potential funding mechanisms, potential partnerships. So it is again, at

[2:07:42] the very early stage and the discussions about how it

[2:07:45] would work functionally are for a later. And the sentence

[2:07:49] above that was for the facility or the whole district.

[2:07:52] Cause that's what I was asking is about the space.

[2:07:55] So what did you said something about the space in

[2:07:58] the first part of that? Well, part of the recommendations

[2:08:02] are distinct, but the task force is established to do.

[2:08:07] It does say at least all of the following. So

[2:08:10] potentially you could go further, but Identify and recommend potential

[2:08:14] governance structures for the mixed use intersegmental educational facility. Okay.

[2:08:20] That was the part that I was asking about. Yeah.

[2:08:22] Thank you. For the facility. Thank you. Member on Guiana

[2:08:25] has a question. More of a comment. I think it

[2:08:29] is really important that we understand the full scope. It's

[2:08:32] like building a house. You can't. How do you build

[2:08:34] a foundation if you don't know the size of the

[2:08:36] house? Like you're going to build things that are not

[2:08:39] appropriate for the size and scope. So I do think

[2:08:41] we need to consider the overall vision and site as

[2:08:45] we develop, you know, the first phase. Thank you for

[2:08:48] that. Any other comments, questions. The only other request I

[2:08:53] would have is as we get the feedback from the

[2:08:56] surveys, it would be really helpful. I think not just

[2:08:59] for, I'm going to speak for myself, but also the

[2:09:01] public to see, not just to see how, um, it's

[2:09:05] interpreted and brought through. But I would love to see

[2:09:09] the comments from the community forum. There were comment cards

[2:09:13] I heard that were submitted. Or the comments of my

[2:09:17] fellow task members who put in their community comments through

[2:09:21] the survey. Because I think this generation of dialogue on

[2:09:27] the dais is super helpful because someone will say something

[2:09:30] and then it'll generate an iterative like comment. Like that's

[2:09:34] the wonderful part of public meetings. Um, but if we

[2:09:37] don't get to see the actual comments and we just

[2:09:39] see how staff kind of interpreted to them and incorporated

[2:09:42] them, we miss out on that richness. And I think

[2:09:45] that's really the heart of community engagement and public meetings.

[2:09:50] So that would be just a request, not necessarily a

[2:09:53] question. Thank you for that. Um, if I may just

[2:09:59] add to some of the comments, you know, when I'm

[2:10:02] hearing about that we're looking at governance and phases as

[2:10:07] we are continuing to develop, um, the, well, develop the

[2:10:14] university concept. And then we talk about finance mechanisms on

[2:10:20] the next meeting. It seems to me, and I understand

[2:10:27] that, you know, we need to be kind of flexible

[2:10:29] here is if we start building momentum for the finance

[2:10:34] mechanism. It seems to me that you need a structure

[2:10:38] of where that lands. And we can't be flexible when

[2:10:43] it comes to public financing. That has to be crystal

[2:10:47] clear. Are we going to trouble, right? So I don't

[2:10:49] know if there's, if staff hasn't, uh, can provide me

[2:10:53] some, some clarity on that. And, cause I'm trying to

[2:10:56] get to where. We can get to a recommendation. I

[2:11:00] don't know if we're there yet. But I like that

[2:11:05] if we're getting into the finance mechanism next meeting, we've,

[2:11:09] we've got to be clear on, on what, what we

[2:11:13] can do on governance right now. Yeah. And I will

[2:11:17] speak for myself, not for the city. Well, I will

[2:11:19] say is that as we have been pulling together the

[2:11:21] recommendation sort of taking in all of the, the legal,

[2:11:25] uh, context, et cetera, we have fully recognized the interplay

[2:11:29] between all three of these areas, these domains, governance, land

[2:11:33] use, and financing. There's a lot of interplay and a

[2:11:36] lot of, uh, codependencies. And so what we are bringing

[2:11:39] to you today is a draft that should also inform

[2:11:43] the discussions that happen when the finance recommendations come forward

[2:11:47] and or the land use recommendations come forward. And they

[2:11:50] all have to work together. And we'll have implications for

[2:11:52] one another. We've begun to do some of that work

[2:11:54] of taking that into consideration. And I'm sure more surprises

[2:11:58] will be in store for us as we dig into

[2:12:00] in more granularity. I would also say that we are

[2:12:03] also trying to hold the discipline of keeping the maturity

[2:12:06] arc in mind and being able to, um, produce recommendations

[2:12:10] that get to the, uh, what we would like to

[2:12:13] see going forward. Because it is, it is recommendations that

[2:12:17] are going to be in the report, not prescription. And

[2:12:20] so that's, I think what we're trying to hold across

[2:12:22] both. But so you will see these come back to

[2:12:24] you as those conversations, uh, come forward. And you should

[2:12:28] anticipate sort of wrestling through those with us as we

[2:12:31] go forward. Thank you for that. And, you know, as

[2:12:35] we're thinking about governance. I'm also hearing a little bit

[2:12:39] of, um, some themes about composition of what, um, each

[2:12:45] of these options would look like. And so I think

[2:12:51] even before we come up with a recommendation, I feel

[2:12:54] like that needs to be fleshed out as well. Um,

[2:12:58] so that we know where to sort, you know, or

[2:13:01] we sort folks and stakeholders. Just to be clear, the

[2:13:05] composition for the governance enterprises. Is that what we're. Any

[2:13:14] other comments? Yes. Dr. Gade. So just kind of trying

[2:13:17] to synthesize the conversation. I think, um, as a body,

[2:13:22] I'm sensing a lot of questions, whether it be about

[2:13:24] the city, kind of city role, whether it be about

[2:13:27] the composition of the board, whether it be the, some

[2:13:30] of the technical pieces. And well, this is not prescriptive.

[2:13:34] I think we want to be really thorough in our

[2:13:36] exploration and robust in our investigation. So perhaps we might

[2:13:41] want to consider creating an ad hoc working group or

[2:13:45] a sub body of a smaller group of us so

[2:13:48] that we can delve deeply come back to the next

[2:13:51] meeting with a really vetted set of questions. It's a

[2:13:56] suggestion. Again, just giving that I'm noting the hour and

[2:13:59] noting the dialogue, uh, that's what I'm sensing. So I

[2:14:02] like to, to have that be part of our consideration

[2:14:05] is perhaps we establish a NATO. Maybe we just meet

[2:14:08] in between meetings to delve deeply with staff so we

[2:14:12] can really kind of bring that back. I know that,

[2:14:15] you know, I think that would help me and my

[2:14:17] determination. These recommendations make theoretical sense. But some of the

[2:14:23] exploration about the practical impacts I think need to be

[2:14:26] explored a little bit more deeply. Yeah. That's an interesting

[2:14:31] suggestion. I want to be also mindful of the scope

[2:14:35] of staff and the consultants. But, um, I'd like to,

[2:14:41] if there is an agreement with a group to explore

[2:14:44] that, obviously what the parameters that would look like, um,

[2:14:49] given baggly keen. Right. I was just going to say,

[2:14:52] um, particularly considering that there are a few members missing,

[2:14:57] um, from the task force today. My recommendation would be

[2:14:59] to add a future meeting agendized, the creation of an

[2:15:03] ad hoc so that folks can know going in that

[2:15:05] that's a decision point that's going to be made. Um,

[2:15:08] as opposed to sort of impromptu creation, just to avoid

[2:15:11] any potential bag leaky issues since it would be an

[2:15:13] action of the board. And then a reminder ad hocs

[2:15:17] are a minority of the, it could be less than

[2:15:23] a minority, right? It could be two of you. It

[2:15:24] could be four of you. Um, but, and the quick

[2:15:26] rules on the ad hoc is it has to be

[2:15:29] limited jurisdiction, something that's finite, uh, where the clear ending

[2:15:34] point, a regular meetings and ad hocs are not subject

[2:15:38] to public meetings, public notice. But my recommendation just to

[2:15:43] keep it really above board legally would be to have

[2:15:46] that as an action item on, on a future agenda

[2:15:49] would be appointment of an ad hoc if you're so

[2:15:50] inclined to go in that direction. And that way you

[2:15:52] can ensure at least the folks that aren't here, you

[2:15:56] know, would come to the next meeting knowing that they're

[2:15:59] missing the meeting or the appointment of the ad hoc

[2:16:01] is coming. And maybe they can pass along their thoughts

[2:16:04] to one of their friends on the board. Okay. Thank

[2:16:06] you for that guidance. Um. Is there a desire to

[2:16:12] create an ad hoc? I mean, obviously we don't want

[2:16:15] to create more work, but, um, there are some really

[2:16:19] substantive questions. In my mind, I obviously the city should

[2:16:23] be part of, um, ad hoc. And I misunderstand what

[2:16:27] you said. We can't even discuss that until the next

[2:16:29] meeting. Or am I misunderstanding what you said for a

[2:16:34] creation, right? Correct. We have to be an action item

[2:16:36] for the next meeting, correct? Correct. And from what I

[2:16:39] understand, Chair, um, Falcon is trying to glean whether the

[2:16:44] appetite to have that as an action item on the

[2:16:46] next meeting. You can discuss it at this point, but

[2:16:49] you can't take the action. That's what I want to

[2:16:50] make sure to make sure you're cool. Okay. Okay. Do

[2:16:56] we need to have a consensus? You know, go ahead.

[2:17:00] To the point of creating an ad hoc committee, it

[2:17:03] would end falling within the rules that the brown act

[2:17:09] and allows us to do. We aren't prohibited from having

[2:17:16] a vote notifying everybody, giving the chairperson the right to

[2:17:22] a point. A ad hoc committee. Because if we want

[2:17:26] to have that recommendation for next meeting. And we, and

[2:17:30] we wait till appointing ad hoc tour, next regular schedule

[2:17:34] meeting, you know, there might be a shortcut for us

[2:17:38] to have a vote. Or I think we aren't prohibited

[2:17:45] from sending out a vote to all the members to

[2:17:49] see if they would authorize the chairwoman to form an

[2:17:54] ad hoc committee to come back with a recommendation at

[2:17:57] our next meeting versus putting this off for six months

[2:18:01] or whenever our next second meeting is. Because if we

[2:18:04] appoint them. Do you have a they could, they could

[2:18:09] authorize the chair. And nothing precludes a minority of this

[2:18:13] body from discussing these items outside of a meeting. As

[2:18:18] long as you don't get into a majority, right? Because

[2:18:23] then you have an issue with Bagley keen. But if

[2:18:25] you're inclined to empower the chair, which is not unusual

[2:18:31] and very typical on formation about hawks, um, to create

[2:18:36] an ad hoc or a small set, I wouldn't call

[2:18:39] it a subcommittee because then you have other rules. But

[2:18:40] yeah, an ad hoc group committee. You can, you could

[2:18:44] do that. Okay. I'm hearing a consensus that there might

[2:18:50] be interest. Okay. Yes. Remember, Alan. And then we'll have

[2:18:53] a member in Karnassian. Thank you, Chair Falcon. I would

[2:18:56] just offer that while, um, in ad hoc committee composed

[2:19:00] of minority a number of members is not required to

[2:19:04] be a public meeting. I would encourage that any meeting

[2:19:06] that happens would be open to the public so that

[2:19:08] this conversation continues to be open and transparent. Okay. Just

[2:19:12] to throw that out there. Yeah. No, thank you for

[2:19:13] that. Dr. Encarmasion and then member on Guyana. Um, I

[2:19:19] was also totally fine. Even with an ad hoc committee.

[2:19:26] I'm just thinking we technically only have two meetings left,

[2:19:30] right? We have a finance and then a final report

[2:19:33] to review. And I'm just wondering if there is an

[2:19:36] ad hoc to think about governance. And then we have

[2:19:39] another very robust meeting about finance that might activate more

[2:19:46] thoughts and conversations that then might bring us back to

[2:19:49] like wanting a tweak something that we thought about around

[2:19:52] governance. I'm feeling like that ad hoc might need a

[2:19:57] meet again. And then maybe. There. I mean, I don't

[2:20:00] know how it'll turn out because we can't foresee the

[2:20:03] future, but I also just want to throw out if

[2:20:08] this task force wants to also just think about how,

[2:20:12] is this an ongoing task scores? Just to be realistic

[2:20:15] for anyone who decides they want to be on it

[2:20:18] and do we also want to consider just the idea

[2:20:22] that this task force might need an additional meeting. If

[2:20:27] I may answer that. So in reading the legislation and

[2:20:30] you raise some really important questions, uh, it's probably what

[2:20:33] keeps me up at night, how we're going to get

[2:20:34] through all this material before the requirement, uh, for submitting

[2:20:39] the final report honor before July 1st, 2027. So the

[2:20:43] number of meetings was not prescribed in the legislation. So

[2:20:46] we could have another meeting. We specifically focused on the

[2:20:50] four meetings, uh, land use today's governance November's finance. And

[2:20:55] then the last meeting was to start, have a discussion

[2:20:58] about the first draft of the report. We can add

[2:21:03] another meeting, but we also want to be mindful that

[2:21:06] there's a lot of work that goes on in between

[2:21:09] the meetings. And so that's why we didn't have six

[2:21:12] meetings versus four meetings. But we certainly can have a

[2:21:18] subgroup or advisory group to work on some of these

[2:21:22] issues, a minority of the task force. We can do

[2:21:24] it publicly. Um, and then we can just be fluid

[2:21:28] because that's part of the issue. Finance might not be

[2:21:30] as complicated as governance actually, because you have a set

[2:21:33] number of mechanisms and then it's the public will whether

[2:21:36] or not we can implement those mechanisms. That was my,

[2:21:40] that's my thinking as well. And I don't know how

[2:21:43] everybody thinks about this, but when we go buy a

[2:21:46] house or we go buy a car, we kind of

[2:21:48] come in with a budget. You know what I mean?

[2:21:50] And we understand what budget we are. I mean, we

[2:21:52] have an expense and we know what we have and

[2:21:54] what we don't have when we build that way instead

[2:21:56] of, and this is the frustrating thing for me because

[2:21:59] I don't, I don't understand like the difficulty with creating,

[2:22:03] we're, we're kind of creating a cathedral when we really,

[2:22:05] really right now, we need to have like, Hey, what's

[2:22:07] the price that we need. And how are we going

[2:22:11] to be able to finance that or reverse? I have

[2:22:14] this amount of money that I can finance. And then

[2:22:17] I'd like to be able to be able to have

[2:22:19] this at least in the first phase of what we're

[2:22:21] doing. Instead, I think we're doing like backward designs. So

[2:22:25] it's just like we're trying to cram all these ideas

[2:22:28] into one small thing. And I think that we have

[2:22:31] to be very careful with that because if we're trying

[2:22:33] to cram everything back into a smaller spot, but we

[2:22:36] don't have the money or we don't have the, uh,

[2:22:38] you know, the capacity to build whenever we want, then

[2:22:41] it's kind of difficult for us to sit here and

[2:22:43] say, Hey, we were actually doing what we were supposed

[2:22:46] to do. So I think financing for me, and I

[2:22:50] said this first meeting, that's the nuts and bolts. Because

[2:22:52] that tells us what money we have, what monies we

[2:22:54] have and what needs we don't. And we're actually able

[2:22:58] to say, okay, then we have this space and then

[2:23:00] we build the governance structure out that way. That's just

[2:23:04] practical me. And I'm sorry. I just don't understand. I

[2:23:09] mean, the concept of binationalism is great. But I mean,

[2:23:12] we're getting into talking about how many board members on

[2:23:17] a possible nonprofit would be from a binational committee to

[2:23:20] have them included. And we just don't even know where,

[2:23:24] you know, if we have the money for it, you

[2:23:26] know, and that's to me is I might, I hope

[2:23:29] I'm not the only one that feels that this is

[2:23:31] a little bit, we're convoluting the process. We didn't find

[2:23:34] out how much money we have. We don't need to

[2:23:36] find out how much it costs. Today was the first

[2:23:37] time I've seen a cost associated with, thank you, Adriana.

[2:23:40] I really appreciate it. But I think that this is.

[2:23:44] I feel like the Mandalorian. This is the way, you

[2:23:47] know, no, thank you for your, you know, your, your,

[2:23:54] your, your passion. I want to also get to membranguiano.

[2:23:59] Did you want to comment on something? I just wanted

[2:24:02] to underscore that. The finance discussion, we will be dedicating

[2:24:06] a whole meeting to that. So we're not overlooking it.

[2:24:09] We're not, the, the, the interplay between governance and finances

[2:24:13] pretty significant. And so yes, just want to reassure you

[2:24:16] that we actually have a consultant in the audience who's

[2:24:19] working with us along with his team to really dig

[2:24:23] into those finances and to bring you a set of

[2:24:27] options to look at. And there are, all of them

[2:24:30] are, you know, what's available. The question is how do

[2:24:32] you activate them? But, um, I just want you to

[2:24:35] know that we are certainly considering that. Member Aguiano. Well,

[2:24:40] I was going to suggest that if we were going

[2:24:42] to have a public meeting anyway, it might make sense

[2:24:44] to make it a task force meeting versus an ad

[2:24:47] hoc. So everyone can attend. And if they can't attend,

[2:24:50] then that's fine. But it seems like a lot of

[2:24:52] people have questions in a minority might not be enough

[2:24:54] people that want to participate. If we can get, um,

[2:25:00] if we can get a quorum of folks, um, for

[2:25:03] another meeting just on governance and just to dedicate, um,

[2:25:10] to governance, if we still cannot come up with a

[2:25:14] recommendation, then we maybe we might need to entertain, um,

[2:25:19] a subset group to really dig in. So we, we,

[2:25:23] we could do that if it is, um, you know,

[2:25:27] if the capacity for us to do that in between

[2:25:32] now and, um, our next meeting. So we could shoot

[2:25:39] for something in October. To give us a chance to

[2:25:43] give you a chance to think about it, absorb, get

[2:25:46] to comments in to Marty. And we can certainly have

[2:25:50] a meeting. It might be an hour. Can we do

[2:25:54] a Zoom meeting? Is that possible? No, we have to

[2:25:56] do in person. Correct. It has to be an in

[2:25:59] - person meeting. And then just a reminder. So the

[2:26:01] way, as Marlene was mentioning, the interplay between governance and

[2:26:04] financing, some financing mechanisms might not be available depending on

[2:26:08] the governance model you choose, right? And then some governance

[2:26:12] models make certain sorts of funding mechanisms available. Um, and

[2:26:16] so I would just caution you from, I mean, certainly

[2:26:20] if the task force feels strongly about a governance recommendation,

[2:26:25] please voice that. Um, but I think the intention of

[2:26:29] our, of our, our, of our, of the group is

[2:26:31] to present the recommendations as options. And then present the

[2:26:34] funding recommendations as options so that you can see how

[2:26:38] they interplay with each other. If you choose this, you

[2:26:41] have this funding mechanism available. If you feel very strongly

[2:26:44] about this funding mechanism, this is no longer an option.

[2:26:47] And so that's sort of one of the reasons why

[2:26:51] the, you know, they're being handled sort of together governance

[2:26:55] first. A replay of governance next along with the funding

[2:26:59] conversation. Dr. Moore. Uh, thank you, Chair. Um, given the

[2:27:06] last few comments, I'm wondering if it would be better

[2:27:09] to defer the discussion of governance till after the finance

[2:27:14] meeting. In other words, schedule another meeting after the next

[2:27:19] meeting. That way we'll know what the finance options are.

[2:27:23] We'll know the interplay between the governance options and the

[2:27:26] finance options. It will give us an opportunity then to

[2:27:30] expore in more depth. Because I agree that we, the

[2:27:34] governance questions there are a significant number of questions that

[2:27:38] I think we need to have an in - depth

[2:27:40] discussion. And the meeting, frankly, just don't leave us enough

[2:27:43] time for discussion. It's just, and it's no one's fault.

[2:27:47] It's just the format in the complexity of the issues.

[2:27:51] So I think rather than having something in October, it

[2:27:54] might be better to have our next meeting about finance,

[2:27:56] then schedule and at another, um, task force meeting. Appreciate

[2:28:03] the sequence. Do you have a conversation? From a staff

[2:28:06] perspective, that makes sense. I think that makes a lot

[2:28:08] of sense. And then it gives you time to think

[2:28:11] and then understand the relationship. And again, we have a

[2:28:15] February meeting. We could schedule January meeting or December, but

[2:28:19] I think January might be more effective. So we can,

[2:28:23] if you want to, I don't know if this would

[2:28:24] be appropriate to, you have an action item for this

[2:28:28] item. You could, um, someone can make a motion to

[2:28:32] have the chair work with staff to work out. The

[2:28:35] details of establishing another, uh, task force meetings specifically to

[2:28:39] focus on governance. Or if you just show a consensus

[2:28:44] that that's what you'd like to do. I can entertain

[2:28:47] a motion, if any, I move to do what, uh,

[2:28:51] what Marlene just put in. I can't repeat it word

[2:28:54] for word, but yeah, so there you go. I'll second.

[2:28:56] Okay. So we have a motion by, uh, member out

[2:28:59] on CBS seconded by a member Allen. Do we want

[2:29:06] to repeat the motion of staff wants to, what I'm

[2:29:10] hearing is that, um, the motion is, is to, um,

[2:29:14] empower the chair to work with staff on sequencing an

[2:29:19] additional meeting, uh, for governance. Um, and yeah, and then

[2:29:25] we'll schedule that meeting. And that we may want to

[2:29:29] identify January for your calendaring so that you have some

[2:29:33] time to plan for this. Okay. So we have a

[2:29:36] motion and a second all in favor. Aye. Any note

[2:29:42] suppose. Okay. The action passes. Thank you so much. I

[2:29:46] really appreciate this discussion was very substantive and rightly so.

[2:29:53] Um, you know, we do have to get this right,

[2:29:55] even though there will be, you know, potential flexibility as

[2:30:02] the university continues to develop, um, especially if we're starting

[2:30:07] to put meat on the bones, we do need a

[2:30:11] structure to, you know, to house, um, these future decisions

[2:30:18] and continuing to organize and plan for this university. So

[2:30:22] I appreciate each and every one of your comments and

[2:30:25] questions and, um, I hear the passion also from, from

[2:30:30] members, um, as he speaks. So thank you. Um, any

[2:30:35] additional comments from members before we adjourn. And thank you

[2:30:39] so much for spending a few more minutes of your

[2:30:41] precious time, um, in this discussion. I have a comment.

[2:30:46] Yes. Um, I want to make sure we can legally

[2:30:49] do this on a non agendaised item. Um. The city

[2:30:56] of Chilevista certified the EIR for this property in 2018.

[2:31:03] However, we have seen in California numerous times. Those certifications

[2:31:10] challenged because of change circumstances. Um, like it or not,

[2:31:16] us people that have grown up in the South Bay

[2:31:20] feel somewhat of a chip on our shoulder. That we

[2:31:23] have the only prison. We have the only toll road

[2:31:27] in the county. You know, some of us think La

[2:31:30] Hoya could afford that better than the people in the

[2:31:32] South Bay. We have a sewage problem that's gone on

[2:31:36] for five or six decades that would never happen in

[2:31:39] La Joya incinitas. Delmar were up and down the coast.

[2:31:44] And we have to deal with it regularly. So maybe

[2:31:47] our chip is misplaced. But this task force has a

[2:31:52] very, very difficult task in front of it of completing

[2:31:58] university. And one of the things that as we get

[2:32:02] people, if we can build on what Southwestern college has

[2:32:06] done and bringing in USC to a South Bay campus,

[2:32:14] one of the things that concerns me is a challenge

[2:32:17] to the EIR that was done in 2018 when we

[2:32:25] complete our task. We get all this done. And then

[2:32:29] somebody doesn't like traffic. Somebody doesn't like the lighting from

[2:32:33] the ball field. Somebody doesn't like the noise. It'll come

[2:32:35] from the vent. And all of a sudden we find

[2:32:38] ourselves in a lawsuit. For years. And people all over

[2:32:44] the country, and I do business all over the country,

[2:32:48] are afraid to come to California. Because of CEQA. The

[2:32:53] legislature has made very clear that if proper things have

[2:32:57] gone into place as Chulavisa did. And they certified the

[2:33:01] EIR that you can request that that area, that 380

[2:33:06] plus acres be exempt from CEQA. What I want to

[2:33:11] do is cut off any future challenges that might come.

[2:33:19] And so the question is, and I've talked to the

[2:33:22] assembly men about this. I've talked to elected officials and

[2:33:25] chill vised about this. And everyone supports. But the assemblyman

[2:33:31] would like to see if this committee would recommend to

[2:33:34] him. That we ask him to carry legislation that would

[2:33:40] exempt. This site from future CEQA challenges. So the question

[2:33:47] is, can we make that recommendation or do we have

[2:33:51] to agendize that. For next meeting? Um, uh, yes, this

[2:33:57] task force can make that recommendation. No, not today because

[2:34:01] of today's agenda. It does go hand in hand with

[2:34:04] governance. Um, because part of the governance task is to

[2:34:08] identify statutory barriers and one can interpret the environmental laws

[2:34:13] as a potential statutory barrier or future barrier for success.

[2:34:18] So that's something that has been the case in many

[2:34:21] times. So that's something that we can consider a staff

[2:34:26] with respect to the final report as a recommendation on

[2:34:30] the statutory barrier front. Um, so that would be an

[2:34:33] item for a future meeting. Um, and we can discuss

[2:34:37] offline. Yeah. The problem is not too future because assume

[2:34:42] in Alvarez would have to introduce at the beginning of

[2:34:45] the year. And so that means we have to act

[2:34:48] this year to have, uh, the implement to act to

[2:34:52] carry the legislation. I've talked to the speaker's office about

[2:34:55] this and the assembly men and again to elect officials

[2:34:57] here. Everyone seems very supportive of us completing our work.

[2:35:05] And then finding ourselves in a lawsuit. For years and

[2:35:09] maybe losing the project. So. If we could agendize that,

[2:35:14] be appreciative. I think it'd be fine to have that

[2:35:15] as part of the next discussion at the October meeting

[2:35:18] on the front end, um, whether that's something that this

[2:35:21] task force wants to do as part of its recommendations.

[2:35:24] Okay. Thank you. Okay. Sure. Thank you member for bringing

[2:35:26] that up. And we'll leave it to staff to determine

[2:35:32] what the most appropriate way to incorporate because of the

[2:35:38] time sensitivity with, um, the upcoming legislative, new legislative session

[2:35:44] starting in January where that, where that conversation should be

[2:35:50] housed, um, you know, the timeframe in our scope of

[2:35:54] meetings. So. Thank you. Any other comments from members. All

[2:36:00] right. With that, thank you so much everyone for, uh,

[2:36:03] your time today on a Friday and for the rich

[2:36:06] discussion and with that, this meeting is a meeting is

[2:36:09] adjourned.

South County Higher Education Planning Task Force

Agenda

Transcript