documentsn.com

Tuition Remittance EliminationCurrently, universities remit the appropriated portion of tuition to the Treasurer’s office.These dollars are then returned to the universities in monthly allotments. The state budgeteliminates this process and instead creates a local fund that will hold all tuition and feerevenue. This fund will be divided between appropriated tuition and non-appropriated, but alltuition dollars will remain at the local level. The implementation was delayed until FY 2019 toallow the universities to make the necessary adjustments to accounting protocols. Eliminatingthe tuition remittance process has been a goal of the enterprise for several years. Itselimination will result in more efficient financial operations at the universities as well asincreased cash management and liquidity power.Arizona Geological Survey & Arizona Mining, Mineral and Natural Resources EducationalMuseum Consolidation & TransferThe state budget consolidates the Arizona Geological Survey (AGS) agency within the UA.Furthermore, the budget also transfers partial control of the Arizona Mining, Mineral andNatural Resources Educational Museum to the UA. The AGS investigates Arizona’s geologyand provides technical advice and assistance to state and local government, industry andmembers of the public. The current 941,000 general fund appropriation forthe AGS was eliminated as part of theconsolidation.The Mining and Mineral Museum sits onthe Capitol Mall, but has been closed since2011. It will likely take a significantinvestment to reopen the building. Thebudget contains a 428,300 annualappropriation and 1 FTE from the ArizonaHistorical Society to the AGS for operationof the Museum. The Museum transfer and appropriation are conditionally enacted uponmonies being raised by July 1, 2018 to sufficiently refurbish and open the Museum at itscurrent location.9

Proposition 123Prop 123 Results49.08%50.92%NoYesProposition 123 is a referendem passed by thelegislature and lead by Governor Ducey as ameans to increase K-12 funding. The propositionpassed by a margin of 19,416 out of a total1,053,314 votes cast. The ballot measureallocates 3.5 billion for Arizona’s public K-12schools over 10 years, with 1.4 billionappropriated from the state general fund and 2billion allocated from the state land trust byincreasing land trust distribution rate from 2.5percent to 6.9 percent.Yes: 536,365No: 516,949 (Source: Secretary of State)While Arizona’s public universities were not parties to the K-12 lawsuit nor the settlement thatspurred Proposition 123, they are beneficiaries of the state’s land trust and as a result, will benefitfrom the changes to earnings distributions from the land trust made under Prop 123.The public universities are projected to gain approximately 64 million over the next ten years.Based on statutory distribution formulas, those dollars would be allocated 46% for ASU,38% for UA and 15% for NAU.These estimates were calculated by the ABOR office based on official numbers published by JLBClast fall. Numbers will be refined and updated as more information on 2016 state revues becomeavailable.Each university’s share of increased land trust distributions will become unrestricted monies withinthe university budgets.10

Projected Additional Land Trust Distributions – Prop 123Fiscal YearASU (46%)NAU (15%)UA (38%)FY 2016 2,482,920 839,757 2,033,385FY 2017 2,716,542 918,772 2,224,710FY 2018 2,927,612 990,159 2,397,565FY 2019 3,064,841 1,036,571 2,509,949FY 2020 3,113,867 1,053,152 2,550,098FY 2021 3,116,693 1,054,108 2,552,413FY 2022 3,104,638 1,050,031 2,542,541FY 2023 3,080,284 1,041,794 2,522,596FY 2024 3,044,798 1,029,792 2,493,534FY 2025 2,999,046 1,014,318 2,456,065 29,651,243 10,028,456 24,282,855TotalTotal increased state land trust distributions to the university enterprise over 10 years as aresult of Proposition 123 is approximately 64 million.11

National LandscapeNational Trends in Postsecondary Education & ArizonaMarketNationallyLegislationArizonaStudent DebtIncreasingSimilartrends toother statesEnrollmentdecliningEnrollmentincreasing atrecord levelsResident vs. nonresident growthSimilarenrollmenttrendsMergers &consolidationsASU &Thunderbird;SXU closingNationallyGuns oncampus(20 states)Arizona2 billsintroduced;1 signedHB 2072failedHB 2338passedFreespeechprotection(VA, MO,TN)2 new billssigned:HB 2548 &HB 2615MarketStudent DebtAccording to the White House, total outstanding student loan debt in the U.S. is 1.2 trillion,making student loans the second highest ranking consumer debt, with mortgages being first.Approximately 40 million American students possess loan debt and roughly 70% of individualswho have graduated with a bachelor’s degree graduate with debt. On average, the class of2015 graduated with 35,051 in debt, reportedly the most in U.S. history. Furthermore,according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, one out of four borrowers are eitherdelinquent or default on their student loans.12

The breakdown between loans taken out by students attending for-profit and non-profit orpublic postsecondary institutions has changed drastically over the past 10 plus years. A studyfrom the Brookings institute shows 13 institutions in the top 25 institutions with the mostfederal debt in 2014 were for-profit, compared to only 1 for-profit institution in the top 25 in2000.For-profit students are also much more likely to default on their loans, as seen below.Borrowing at Arizona’s public university enterprise is increasing consistently with nationaltrends, but it is also affected by the availability of institutional aid for students. During 201415, total financial aid provided to Arizona’s public university students was 2.2 billion,increasing about 43 percent from 1.5 billion in FY 2010. Since FY 2010 the amount of loanssecured by university students has increased by nearly 37 percent, however, loans as apercent of total aid has declined since FY 2010. Loans represented about 48 percent of totalaid in FY 2010 versus 46 percent in FY 2015.13

Declining National Enrollment – Arizona Enrollment at Record HighsThe National Student Clearinghouse reports enrollment at postsecondary institutions hasdeclined for several years, primarily driven by for-profit colleges, students aged 24 and olderand full time community college students.Change in Total Student Enrollment at American Postsecondary InstitutionsFall 201419,619,773Fall 201519,280,473Total Enrollment Decrease339,300More than half of the total enrollment decrease occurred at four-year for-profit institutions,while enrollment at four-year public institutions remained essentially flat. While enrollmentnationally is sliding, enrollment at Arizona’s public university enterprise remains strong.Between Fall 2014 and Fall 2015, headcount enrollment for the entire university systemincreased by 6.7 percent - the largest percentage increase in enrollment since Fall 1975.Total enrollment is at the record level of 163,183, an increase of 10,250 from the previousyear, and the largest 1-year increase ever recorded. Undergraduate enrollment at 132,735 isat a record level as well as graduate enrollment at 30,448.Resident vs. Nonresident GrowthThe change in resident vs. non-resident enrollment demographics is becoming moreprominent nationwide. The Pioneer Institute issued a report analyzing trends in non-residentvs. resident enrollment, with a case-study focus on Massachusetts. UMass incurred an 85percent increase in non-resident student growth since 2008, with the report claiming agrowing trend that non-resident growth is the result of public institutions seeking to raiserevenue from higher non-resident tuition rates in order to subsidize all university operations.As a result, the Pioneer Institute is recommending a cap on non-resident students to theMassachusetts legislature and board of trustees of UMass. Capping non-resident enrollmentis a growing national trend – the University of North Carolina and University of CaliforniaBerkley, two nationally prominent public institutions, recently capped non-residentenrollment. Contrarily, last year ABOR eliminated a policy capping enrollment of full-timenon-resident undergraduate students at the public universities, which had been set at 30percent of each university’s total undergraduate enrollment.As a result of non-resident enrollment growth, several states are debating what theresponsibility is for public postsecondary institutions regarding the prioritization of educatingresident students, particularly driven by the fact that public institutions receive public monies(see Massachusetts, Virginia, California, Louisiana). This may signal the Arizona publicuniversity enterprise is well positioned given the board’s recently adopted resident based14

funding model places cost of resident students at the center of the enterprise’s fundingrelationship with the state.State Funding of Public UniversitiesState support for public universities in FY 2017 varied widely. Below is a comparison of thepercent change in state appropriation for public universities of Arizona and its designatedpeers. As shown, many of Arizona’s peer states either received new state dollars, or havefunding increases proposed.FY 2017 State Appropriation Peer ComparisonState% ChangeStatusWashington6.0Governor proposedNevada5.8Biennium .8 (Would be 2% ifEnacted 32M (19Monly counting ongoing)is 1-time)Pennsylvania4.8Governor ever, new dollars are not the case for all states. Wisconsin’s 2015-17 budget cut Wisconsin university system 250 million. Illinois is in the middle of a budget impasse. Public universities did not receive state fundingfor roughly 10 months until 600 million in stopgap funding was approved to keep publicpostsecondary institutions open through the summer. Moody’s Investors Service hasdowngraded the credit rating of 3 public universities. Permanent funding cuts have beenproposed in the range of 6.5 percent to 31 percent.15

Louisiana currently has an estimated budget shortfall of over 700 million. Louisiana publicpostsecondary institutions could be facing cuts in the range of 8 percent to 12 percent.National Landscape - LegislationGuns on CampusAccording to the National Conference of State Legislatures, over 20 states have introducedlegislation in the past 5 years authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms on campus. 8 states allow the carrying of concealed guns on public postsecondary campuses:Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin. Arkansas and Tennessee allow certain faculty members to carry guns on campus, butdo not permit carrying by students or the general public. 19 states ban carrying a concealed gun on a college campus:o California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan,Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, NorthCarolina, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee and Wyoming. 23 states allow universities to set campus carry policies:o Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana,Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire,Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia,Washington and West Virginia.Two bills were introduced during the 2016 Arizona legislative session and were both formallyopposed by ABOR. HB 2072, sponsored by Rep. Sonny Borrelli, would have authorizeduniversity faculty and registered students to carry guns on campus if the individual possesseda concealed weapons permit and registered the gun with the university. The bill did notreceive a hearing in any House committee.HB 2338, sponsored by Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, adds language forbidding Arizona educationalinstitutions from prohibiting the lawful carrying of a deadly weapon on a public right-of-way.As introduced, the bill included a definition of “public right-of-way” that may have expandedthe traditional definition to included paths and thoroughfares on university property.The bill was amended to clarify that property of an educational institution is exempt from anynew requirements, thus alleviating many ABOR and university concerns, and was signed intolaw.Free Speech on CampusAccording to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), 1 in 6 of America’s topcolleges and universities implement “free speech zones”, or restrict student expressive rights16

to small areas of campus. As this issue has grown nationally, many states have attempted topass legislation with varying results.In 2014, Virginia passed a law prohibiting restrictions on student speech except forreasonable time, place and manner restrictions. The language largely incorporatesprotections on speech provided by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and case lawinterpreting the First Amendment.In 2015, Missouri passed the Campus Free Expression Act, which defines entire campuses as“public forums” and provides for legal ramifications for aggrieved individuals, includingspecifying a 500 penalty for the initial violation, and 50 for each day the violation remainsongoing.It is important to note that Arizona’s public universities do not limit free speech to anyconfined area of campus and contain no free speech zones – freedom of student speech isprotected throughout the entirety of each campus at all three universities.During the 2016 Arizona legislative session, two bills were signed into law regarding studentspeech on university campuses. HB 2548, sponsored by Rep. Paul Boyer, as introduced wasnearly identical to the 2015 Missouri legislation. The bill defined entire campuses as publicforums, set forth a private right of action, and established specific compensatory penalties.Concerns with the legislation were raised regarding: 1) altering legal regulations of freespeech, arguing the First Amendment and current case law already provide appropriateprotection of student speech on campus; and 2) specifying dollar amounts as penalties instate law, as they might encourage individuals to pursue frivolous actions. Based on theseconcerns, ABOR and university lobbyists secured several amendments alleviating most of theconcerns (see HB 2548 in the Bills Affecting the Enterprise section).HB 2615, sponsored by Rep. Anthony Kern, originally prohibited a community college oruniversity from designating any area on campus a “free speech zone” and directed any freespeech zones in existence to be converted to a monument or memorial. Based on the sameconcerns expressed regarding HB 2548, ABOR and university lobbyists successfully replacedmuch of the language in HB 2615 with aspects from the 2014 Virginia law (see HB 2615 in theBills Affecting the Enterprise section).Both HB 2548 and HB 2615 as amended were signed into law.17

Looking ForwardState Budget & RevenuesState general fund revenue growth remains above the budgeted estimates of JLBC. Aprilrevenues were the strongest in 8 years and leave Arizona’s year-to-date revenues 61Mabove estimate and 402 million above the first 10 months of the previous fiscal year.Projected base revenue growth for FY 2016 was 3.5 percent and 4.0 percent for FY 2017.The state budget picture is gradually improving largely due to revenues slightly above forecastand the passage of Proposition 123. Job growth is also improving at a higher rate than anytime during the state’s current economic expansion. These indicators may result in upwardsof 200 million available for discretionary state spending during the 2017 legislative session.Proposition 301Perhaps the single biggest issue facing the state inthe upcoming years will be the possiblereauthorization of Proposition 301. Prop 301 waspassed in November of 2000 and implemented a 20year increase of 0.6 percent to the state’s sales tax,expiring in June of 2021. While the majority of Prop301 funding is dedicated to Arizona’s K-12 system,the public university enterprise receives 12 percentof the monies remaining after designated K-12 debtservice payments.Prop 301 TotalUniversity AppropriationFY 2016 63.7MFY 2015 67.2MFY 2014 65.3MFY 2013 59.8MUniversity Prop 301 dollars are allocated to the Technology and Research Initiative Fund(TRIF) and used for various purposes, including the stimulation of entrepreneurship,innovation, and research and development to support Arizona’s knowledge-based economy.Ensuring the public university enterprise maintains an active role in Prop 301reauthorization talks will be critically important during the foreseeable future.Ballot InitiativesBallot initiatives legalizing the recreational use of marijuana and changes to minimum wageand paid sick leave are likely to appear on the 2016 Arizona ballot. Recreational use ofmarijuana is legal in four states and the District of Columbia, and Nevada will be voting on theprospect later in 2016. The Arizona Minimum Wage and Paid Time Off Initiative aims to raiseArizona’s minimum wage from 8.05 per hour to 10 in 2017, and incrementally to 12 by2020. The initiative also would mandate paid sick leave of 40 hours per year for largecompanies and 24 hours per year for small businesses.Both initiatives are under vast scrutiny by the public and Arizona’s business groups andcoalitions. ABOR should monitor these initiatives closely and consider a thorough analysis ofeach initiative’s effects on the public university enterprise.18

Bills Affecting the EnterpriseHB 2271 universities; commercial paper (Rep. David Livingston)HB 2271 authorizes ABOR to issue commercial paper on behalf of the public universities toprovide short term financing for capital projects or related expenses. Commercial paper isessentially a short term promissory note with very low interest rates; often below 1%.Commercial paper is used by many public university systems and private corporationsnationwide.Under the bill, any issued commercial paper must be repaid within 270 days and may bepayable by a pledge of tuition, fees, rentals, and other sources that may be pledged withoutviolating constitutional debt limits. ABOR may contract with a bank, insurance or indemnitycompany to provide additional security for the commercial paper.The bill also authorizes ABOR to obtain lines of credit for cash management or liquiditypurposes.HB 2271 is the only standalone legislation run by ABOR and the universities during the 2016session. The introduced bill was very similar to the board’s commercial paper bill from theprevious session, yet the final enacted bill has several key differences. HB 2271 received athorough hearing in the House Banking and Financial Services Committee resulting in agreedupon amendments that: Subject commercial paper to each university’s 8% annual debt cap;Limit uses of commercial paper to capital projects and related expenses;Ensure commercial paper is only subject to JCCR review when issued for a capitalproject that will be financed with long term financing.Limit the amount of commercial paper that can be issued at 25% of each university’s8% annual debt cap; andInclude details on commercial paper in the board’s annual debt report, rather thancreating an annual report exclusive to commercial paper.Issuing commercial paper and establishing lines of credit will allow the public universities tooperate more efficiently and, most importantly, save money. HB 2271 passed out of theHouse and Senate without a single NO vote, demonstrating a strong advancement of theboard’s regulatory reform agenda that the enterprise will build upon next session.Board PositionABOR sponsored billOutcomeSigned by GovernorHB 2033 post-9/11 veteran education relief fund (Rep. Sonny Borrelli)HB 2033 establishes the Post-9/11 Veteran Education Relief Fund and the Post-9/11 VeteranEducation Relief Advisory Committee. The Fund is comprised from donations, grants,19

bequests and other dollars dedicated to the Fund to be used as financial assistance forveterans attending one of the public universities based on financial need. Dollars may not beused as financial assistance at other postsecondary institutions, and are paid directly to therespective public university. The 9-member gubernatorial Advisory Committee, including onemember recommended by ABOR, establishes the criteria and application process for thefinancial awards.Board PositionSupportOutcomeSigned by GovernorHB2547/SB 1122 universities; in-state tuition; AmeriCorps. (Rep. Rusty Bowers & Sen. DavidBradley)HB 2547 and SB 1122 are identical bills authorizing students who participate in theAmeriCorps or Volunteers in S

HB 2271 Establish commercial paper program and include details in annual debt service report. HB2547/SB1122 Revise ABOR policy for AmeriCorps & VISTA resident tuition rate HB 2666 ABOR President is a member of Workforce Data Task Force. unemployment insurance data. HB 2695 ASU &am