DRAFT
MINUTES
PLANNING ACTION COUNCIL
(PAC)
Thursday, June 6, 2002
Members
Present:
AFT – W. Hollis, J.
Stanbery
Classified:
Co-Chairs: L. Spink, M. Wood
Resource Persons: G. Wood
Guests: B. Englert, B. McNeel
Absent: Administration: N. Malone; AFT: R. Oakes; Classified: L. De Silva, K. Gentry, G. Mendoza, L. Payne B. Sotelo, T. Sulyok; Students: A. Bolis, P. Heath, P. Lovett, H. Nguyen; Resource: C. Liddle
Meeting called to order at 1:30 p.m. No quorum present. Minutes for May 16 deferred to the next meeting.
1. Update on Facilities Master Plan Ann
Tomlinson
The project managers for the campus development under proposition A were introduced. Bruce Risley and Ken Pruitt of Pinnacle One will organize and detail the projects, coordinate the funding numbers, and negotiate the contracts for EIR, architects, programmers etc. Cost estimates for the 5-year plan are
$180 million with prop A funding at $124 million. $90-$95 million of the $124 million was available for construction costs with 25% of funds for soft costs. No specific area could be identified for the cost increase. Lack of communication may have contributed to the overrun. Costs will still depend on the EIR report and there are some additional legal fees in negotiations for easement of the ring road and with the City of LA for the “L” Street property. Easement costs may be $30,000 with golf course negotiations at $70,000. Priorities and decisions on what to reduce must remain true to the priorities and projects outlined in the original master plan developed 1-1/2 years ago. It was noted that MDA Johnson/Favaro produced a well-organized plan, however it was over budget. It will be up to PAC to make the final recommendations on what projects to fund.
The EIR consultants have been interviewed and selected. Their contract is being finalized and will go to the board shortly. EIR is a 12-month process with the necessary research/background, and determining the impact projects will have on a variety of areas in the community, i.e. traffic, pollution, etc. Programmer(s) are being selected to put all the projects together. The college is looking for a single entity to program all the projects and provide a uniform and well-contained plan to accomplish the college needs. The proposal has been negotiated and will be presented to the Board. Programming essentially looks at the all the needs of a building - i.e. use, space needed, equipment, AC - needed to develop the design of the building without designing the building. The programmer will also consider the least disruptive cycle so that classrooms will not be disrupted. This process is estimated to take 4-8 months to fully develop and describe the projects and in relation to budgets. Programming will address what is going to happen:
· Existing building use and level of improvements in the 5 and 30-year plans
· Address minimum levels of fixtures, furniture and equipment acceptable
· Athletic fields and landscaping improvements – priorities will relate to new construction i.e. whether to relocate football field and/or use artificial turf.
· New construction – what has the highest priority
Division chairs provided MDA Johnson/Favaro with their needs which may be incorporated into existing facilities and renovations. It will be at least 2 years before groundbreaking. An architect has been hired for renovation of the theater/speech/music buildings and those projects are moving forward. It was decided these would be the least disruptive and self-contained projects. Nursing will also receive minor renovations. A question was raised as to the original project priority list and if that was reviewed to determine projects chosen for work. The president indicated the theater/speech/music and nursing buildings were selected because they were in the top of the list and were self-contained so they could be moved forward early in the process. Funds are available for renovations in those buildings and it is important to begin work. It was also noted that the amount of new proposed space far exceeds what the state indicates the college needs. The state says we can house 11,000 students currently. The president stated that all along she envisioned the NW Building with meeting room space for community conferences, a culinary section with a restaurant, and receiving. Some of the conference space may need to be reduced and likely some classroom space somewhere on campus.
The committee was asked to consider new scenarios to reduce the $60 million cost. A lot still depends on findings in the EIR report and it was noted that the college realize that ‘surprise’ costs will continue to occur. The order of magnitude may not be as great as the current figure but there are a lot of variables which may generate cost increases. The original renovation figures included only painting and AC, but all the classrooms are in need of new desks/chairs. Renovation figures now include 5% for equipment for these costs. The District does not want to purchase items piece meal and the desks/chairs will be ordered at the time of other renovations so that the entire building will have a ‘new’ feel. There is flexibility in the master plan and the 5 and 30-year plans. The college has an IPP and FPP with the state which will affect available funding. There is an FPP for physical education; and an IPP for both fine arts and child development. Architects will be provided parameters under which to design buildings however it was noted that different architects could be hired for each building.
It was agreed that the PAC Facilities Planning Committee was a short-term, 8-committee member group which no longer meets. The Work Environmental Committee provides input on IPPs and is working on environmental and safety issues such as a disaster evacuation plan.
The president suggested a brainstorming session to generate ideas to cut costs and to hold PAC meetings through the summer. The tentative brainstorming session is for July 9 or 16 with a possible follow-up on July 23 to be determined at a later time.
2. Planning & Procedure Manual
Approval
Mark Wood
The issue to include students was addressed through the addition of an addendum to the manual and with an additional addendum distributed at the meeting. A list of committees will also be added to the manual. Without a quorum present, decision on the manual was deferred to the next PAC meeting.
3. Academic Affairs Unit Plan
Presentation Luis Rosas
The division priorities were presented as developed at the last Division Council meeting. Some divisions wanted to maintain their funds for faculty and supplies, with the number one request being for clerical support. It was noted that Academic Affairs could further prioritize the division needs. The OP will be looking at staffing and other accounts, all of which will move into the unit plans. A. Tomlinson indicated that the unit plans will be put on Q Builder during the summer and recommended that the college wait until fall to develop overall priorities.
Other Items:
· The Chancellor has asked for ways to reduce the $4.5 million deficit projected for next year.
· FHPC has new forms. Members were advised to have any new faculty requests in their unit plans.
· There are four grant writers on campus available to assist faculty with writing grants for their areas: B. McNeel, J. Sparks, D. Tull, A. Tomlinson
Meeting adjourned 3:30 p.m.