DRAFT
MINUTES
PLANNING ACTION COUNCIL
(PAC)
Tuesday, July 16, 2002
8:30 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Off-Campus Retreat
Members
Present:
AFT – W. Hollis, J. Stanbery
Co-Chairs: L. Spink, M. Wood
Resource Persons: G. Wood
Guests: B. Englert, L. Heimgartner, L. Johnston, B. Shue, J. Smith, L.
Woodley, B. Young
Bill Global, First Fire; John Kouros,
DMJM/JGM; Bruce Risley, Ken Pruett, Pinnacle One; Dave Mitani, David Hart,
Heather Perry-Melish, The Steinberg Group
Absent: Administration: AFT: R. Oakes; Classified: L. De Silva, K. Gentry, G. Mendoza, L. Payne:
Students: A. Bolis, P. Heath, P. Lovett, H. Nguyen; Resource: C. Liddle
Meeting called to order at 9:00 a.m. President Spink provided the introductory remarks reiterating that the purpose of the retreat was to reaffirm the priorities for the Prop A bond monies. There will be another PAC meeting on July 23 to consider the district and college budgets. The chancellor’s office has mandated a reduction in FTES capping any immediate future growth.
Bruce Risley was introduced as the project manager who will oversee the entire process to get the facilities built and renovated. He will take the process through the stages of programming, design, and construction ensuring that the progress is as efficient and cost effective as possible. The Master Plan is viewed as a broad concept of where the college will go in the next 20-30 years and how it will be implemented. However, as the guiding vision the plan is flexible to allow for changes as necessary. Dr. Tomlinson indicated there are two constraints in completing the plan: 1) money and 2) unknowns. Committee members noted that the issues being discussed and the master plan need to be communicated back to the college community to keep everyone informed on what is being built. John Kouros was introduced from DMJM/JGM as the area programmer facilitating implementation of the Bond A funds and to lend his expertise in review of the construction activities.
1. Card Security System
Bill Global, First Fire
First Fire installed the campus wide fire alarm system. The company also has an access control system that is customizable and can be combined with a campus ID system for use. Employees would have security cards with information as to which buildings/rooms they can access during specific hours. All systems are user friendly and would increase campus security and operational efficiency. The access system will automatically lock and unlock facilities and generate a variety of reports. It was noted there are backup batteries in event of a power failure and that people will always be able to exit the buildings. There are redundancies built into the system. The access has the potential to cut costs with reduced man hours needed to open and lock buildings and locksmiths rekeying, while increasing control of buildings and added security. A cost of approximately $1 million was mentioned. Should the campus choose to include this in our upgrades/renovations.
2. 5-Year Plan Progress
Update
Ken Pruett, Pinnacle One
A current budget for the 5-year plan was distributed showing the previous projection by MDA Johnson Favaro and the current projection by Pinnacle One. Initial renovation costs included only paint and air conditioning. Further examination revealed that buildings need more renovations than paint and air conditioning, including ceiling/floor replacements, meeting ADA requirements, etc. Thus renovation costs increased over $8 million. A review of expenses followed. The original master plan did not contain a lot of description which may have contributed to the $60 million over budget. A professional cost estimator has provided more realistic estimates. The new figures make some raw assumptions such as a growth increase of 25%. As the plan moves through the implementation process, designing will provide more specifics which will further refine the costs. B. Risley noted that the current projection figures were high-end estimates and thus it was hoped the college would not see any further increases. Some soft costs were not included in the original estimates. The college anticipates receiving state funding of $8 million for the new Technology building and $4 million for PE.
· The site utility allowance estimate increased to extend the tunnels to all the new construction sites. This was not included in the original projection. The tunnels are for IT, boiler, electrical access. Soft costs for the architect, environmental, geothenical and geophysical costs are distributed throughout the budgets. The hard and soft costs are built into the projects. There is approximately $90 million available for actual construction, $81 million minus the site allowance.
· PAC will take the first steps to quantify the numbers and move forward on establishing priorities for the projects. 1) master plan; 2) projected project costs; 3) data and costs begin to be more defined; 4) design process will further narrow projected costs.
· A parking inventory and utilization spreadsheet was distributed giving a 2-day snapshot in mid-May 2002 of parking use. It was noted this occurred in the last two weeks of the semester. Some committee members felt this may not reflect an accurate representation of usage. It was further noted that a ratio computation could be done to reflect a more accurate number for an earlier part in the semester. Cost for the original traffic study: $15,000.
· The committee expressed concern for the congestion levels on the surface streets with L Street being critical.
· A graph was presented displaying our progress thus far on the individual projects. Several projects are being worked on simultaneously such as the geotechnical and geophysical aspects of the site. The consultant is on board for the EIR report which will encompass everything including effects on the community, pollution, traffic, parking, etc. It will take 9-12 months to complete the EIR. There will be two public hearings to discuss and provide information on air quality, construction vehicles, parking and traffic and will provide the needed community feedback. A final stage will address community concerns. The report will then be certified by a state clearinghouse and once the document is complete and approved by the board, construction can begin. Renovations can be begin earlier.
· The telephone upgrade is in progress with a completion date for the end of August or early September.
· Land acquisition - the college needs a limited amount of small parcels of land around the perimeter road at the south end of campus and is working on a land swap with the department of Parks and Recs. The college is not proceeding on negotiations for parking along L Street. Legal fees for negotiations may be $100,000. J. Smith recommended looking into the history that the parking land may originally have been given to Parks and Recs by the college. B. Risley agreed to pursue.
· The first four renovation projects include, theater, music, fine arts and nursing. The contract for an architect for these projects was approved by the board last week. The design phase for the renovations with take 4-5 months, and 3-4 months for DSA approvals, so the campus expect to see construction in approximately 10 months. The CPM will work with faculty, staff, and administration to coordinate schedules.
· Another project involves working on the color palette for the building enhancements.
· Two other potential early starts for new construction include the Facilities Management and Student Services buildings. These two buildings are affected by the EIR report. No new construction can begin until the EIR is completed.
· J. Kouros indicated that activities can be sequenced with the priorities to save money up front. Planning strategies are important and the college has made great strides in budgeting and prioritizing projects. The projects can be done as units. It is hoped that Pinnacle One will have a full 5-year contract to oversee the projects. J. Kouros is compiling the documentation to fulfill the legal requirements tracking efficient use of the Prop A funds. He is able to do a comparison of costs across the entire district providing a more efficient use of funds. Sustainability and DSA improvements can be done efficiently.
3. Programming Phase Issues
Bruce
Risley
· Budget – the budget needs to be trimmed by $60 million. PAC today will reaffirm the priorities of the college.
· Renovations – original projections included only interior/exterior painting and air conditioning. The original master plan wanted to limit renovation work and maximize new construction from the Prop A funding since renovations can be paid for with state funds, new buildings cannot. However, it is critical to address the needs of the buildings to make them safe, functional and secure. PAC is being asked to prioritize the renovation projects in relation to the other campus projects.
· The new Technology building will receive state funding in 2004 to begin the design process. Construction funds would be available 05/06. The earliest completion date for the building is mid-2006 if the statewide bone measure passes in November. Funding for the PE building would occur two years later, again, dependent upon a bond measure passing (2004-5) with design funds in 05/06 and the facility construction 06/07.
Athletics
Joyce Ricci
With the college budget deficit, all areas are being reviewed for potential savings. One area is athletics. A handout for the athletic/football budgets was distributed. Football has a high retention rate. Nearly 1/3 of the community colleges in the state do not have a football program. In addition to program 100 and 010 funds, coaches fund raise $12,000-$15,000 to assist with items such as football refurbishments. 64% of our students are female and Title IX regs state that our sports and funding reflect that percentage. It was noted the college has made strides towards improving the equality with the addition of women’s coaches and women’s sports. The long-range plan is to recruit more women. Soccer is on the rise as both a men’s and women’s sport. Football is being reviewed in light of the master plan for athletics and prop A funds. Discussion followed on how the south campus got changed to accommodate the swap meet and the concept of increased green space on campus.
Soccer can be played on a football field that is not regulation size. Football could possibly be suspended for a short time. The group questioned cutting programs with potential impacts on so many areas on campus. Discussion followed on the long-term concerns of closing a program. N. Barakat requested that no information be disclosed to the public on considerations to close the football program. It was noted that it is important that facilities not drive decisions on the campus. Any requests for funds has to be attached to the master plan
4. Programming Learning Environment
David
Hart, The Steinberg Group
· D. Hart outlined Phases to consider in programming the facilities.
Phase I: a preliminary assessment of existing conditions; space needs analysis; and project priorities which are the best ways to utilize the funds to achieve goals.
Phase II: existing building evaluation
Phase III: detailed programming of selected projects.
· Trends in Learning Environments: Learning environments are integrating new technologies to create flexible, collaborative and adaptive environments. It is important to consider acoustics (both to keep sound out and to create proper acoustics); visibility within the environment, seating, technology, storage and adaptability. Different qualities of classrooms were discussed with the equipment and arrangements. Ball park costs for each level: Level 1 ($180/sq. ft), Level 2 ($230/sq. ft.), Level 3 ($350-$500/sq. ft). Costs include furniture but not equipment. The college may decide on having a mix of levels 1, 2 & 3 classrooms depending upon the need.
5. Confirmation of
Priorities
Bruce
Risley, Pinnacle One
PAC discussed the minimum qualities they would like in the renovations – new paint, safety (ceiling and floor tiles), lighting both interior and exterior. It was decided that needs may vary from building to building and may include such areas as restrooms, painting, conducive learning environment, seating, lighting, noise pollution, air conditioning, furnishings, white boards, safety and sanitary issues. Utility and safety issues are very important. Spending money on the highest use areas verses adopting a whole campus approach was discussed. The group liked a campus wide expenditure concept approach.
· It was noted that the initial renovations next summer were occurring in buildings with air conditioning and that class scheduling would be important. Academic Affairs requested adequate lead time to schedule classes impacted by renovations.
· New Classrooms – can be built in combination with other uses such as for multipurpose rooms.
· Campus Image – relates to landscaping and the physical look. The master plan creates L Street as the main entrance to campus. The physical appearance is tied to irrigation and planting with the suggestion to go to zera planting. There is $400,000 state funding available for irrigation for scheduled maintenance dollars.
· Physical Education/Wellness Center – this has a direct connection to the community. A fitness center is important for the campus and community. It was decided to separate athletic field from the gym/wellness project.
· Multi-Purpose Rooms Conference Center – PACE needs a larger venue and it would be nice to have a large room for that program (500). Such a facility has the potential to bring in needed funds to the college. It was noted that PACE was included in the new classrooms classifications discussed earlier.
· Culinary Arts – this initially fit with the NW Academic Building but it can’t afford to exist as a separate area.
· Cafeteria/Cyber Café – the committee liked the terms new food service area. It was noted the existing facilities are not attractive in both service and facility.
· Student Services Building – a one-stop center for student services acting as an entryway to the campus with an affect on campus image. All student services would be consolidated into one area whereas they now exist on four different locations. Exists as part of the master plan.
· Facilities Operations Maintenance Building – the master plan calls for an inexpensive building which is key to being moved before other projects of the plan can occur. The new facilities will provide storage and trash receptacles. Trucks will be taken out of the center of campus. The existing building could be used for interim classroom during construction.
· Parking/Access – PAC asked to separate parking from access. Parking deals with the number of parking spaces while access addresses traffic. The college has made a commitment to the swap meet and will abide by the 30-year plan. The college needs more drop off areas especially for students with disabilities.
PAC proceeded to vote projects on scales of High, Medium, and Low priorities with the following results:
|
Priority # |
HIGH |
Priority # |
MEDIUM HIGH |
Priority # |
MEDIUM |
Priority # |
LOW |
|
1 |
Renovations |
5 |
Student Services Bldg. |
7 |
Gym/Wellness Center |
10 |
Multipurpose Rooms |
|
2 |
New Classrooms |
6 |
Campus Image |
8 |
Athletic Fields |
11 |
Culinary Arts |
|
3 |
Facilities Operations Maintenance Bldg. |
|
|
9 |
Cafeteria/Food Service |
12 |
Parking |
|
4 |
Access |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meeting adjourned 4:00 p.m.