COLLEGE PLANNING COUNCIL (CPC)
APPROVED MINUTES
CONSTRUCTION PLANNING PRIORITIES RETREAT
Tuesday, August 29th, 2006
12:00 pm
ConocoPhillips Refinery
Members Present:
Administration: L. Spink, A. Tomlinson, A. Patterson, L. Rosas, B. McNeel, N. Malone
Faculty: Senate: M. Wood, N. Barakat
AFT: L. McKenzie
Classified: T. Sulyok
Co-Chairs: N. Carson, S. McMurray
Students: D. Brooks, J. Trujillo
Resources: B. Easley
Guests: M. Bishop, N. Bustamante, C. Carillo, M. Carvajal, D. Ching, E. Colocho, C. Couroux, K. Crummer, I. Dessouki, B. Englert, A. Escandon, M. Farhat, F. Faridpak, S. Fasteau, J. Fu, M. Gagrat, R. Gobel, P. Grady, D. Griffith, D. Hart, H. Jenkins, L. Johnston, K. Keller, J. Lee, L. MacPherson, T. Mariner, E. Mathis, P. Meckley, H. Melish, S. Millman, C. Minami, M. Moreno, T. Munassinghe, C. Mussa-Muldoon, R. Nadler, J. Parker, E. Portis, M. Reddick, B. Risley, L. Roberts, J. Sandell, B. Shue, D. Tull, R. Wade, R. Whiting, M. Yanez, S. Yoder, C. Youins, L. Heimgartner, S. Toeque, K. Houten, A. Campbell, J. Naranjo
Absent: Faculty, Senate: J. Stanbery; Faculty, AFT: B. Guertin, R. Oakes; Classified: I. Clarke, L. DeSilva, T. Gonzalez, L. Payne
Single Item Agenda: Prop A/AA Priorities Update
Dr. Spink thanked everyone for attending and ConocoPhillips for hosting the meeting. The floor was turned over to Steinberg Architects (D. Hart). D. Hart reviewed the history of the Prop A/AA projects priorities previously and discussed adherence to those priorities in work already done; provided the current status of construction/renovation projects and budget updates (with assistance from M. Bishop and R. Gobel); and presented three options for prioritizing the remaining campus construction/renovation projects.
Prop A Priorities:
High
Renovation of existing buildings (Music, Nursing, Theater/Speech, Fine Arts, Science, Admin)
New classrooms (Tech building, Northeast Academic Building)
Facilities Management and Operations Headquarters
Site access (loop road, drop off areas)
High/Medium
Student Services Center
Campus Image (exterior painting)
New food service/Cafeteria
Medium
New PE/Wellness Center
New Athletic fields
Low
Culinary Arts
Multi-purpose Conference Center
Parking lots/structures
Prop AA Priorities:
High
Renovation of existing buildings (Music, Nursing, Theater/Speech, Fine Arts, Science, Admin)
New classrooms (Tech building)
New Chemistry/Physics Classroom Building
New LRC
NW Classroom Building w/Culinary Arts
New PE/Wellness Center
DWP enclosure moved to campus perimeter
High/Medium
New CDC
New Student Union
Medium
Complete Cruciform Landscape
Low
New food service/Cafeteria
New Aquatic Center
Land acquisition (north of Campus)
Re-orient Athletic Fields to N/S direction
Parking Lots/structures
Options Presented:
Major topics of discussion for Option 1:
Pros: New CDC and PE buildings; keeping all state funding for PE and CDC
Cons: No new Chemistry/Physics building
Money may have to be returned to the State for the LRC (14.3 million)
Only 2 Chemistry labs built into partially-renovated Science building
Physics/Fam-Cons studies in business building, separate from other sciences
Campus improvements reduced in scope
Major topics of discussion for Option 2:
Pros: New PE building
4 Chemistry/Physics labs built into the fully renovated Science building
Business Building fully renovated, including Geology/Geography/Fam-Cons Studies
Full scope of campus improvements
Cons: One portable building in the CDC replaced; CDC money would have to be returned to the State (3.4 million)
Money may have to be returned to the State for the LRC
No new Chemistry/Physics building
Geology/Geography/Physics/Fam-Cons studies in business building, separate from other sciences
Major topics of discussion for Option 3:
Pros: New Chemistry Physics Building
Full scope of campus improvements
Cons: Money would have to be returned to the State for the CDC and PE building, and possibly the LRC
Business building demolished
General discussion included the budget (where did the money go?), rising construction costs, and a possible future bond issue.
Following lengthy and passionate discussion, S. McMurray called for a consensus on the ranking of the options in order of preference. It was decided that the attendees would split into constituencies to discuss and then rate the options. The options were ranked as follows:
Administration: 2, 1, 3
Students: 2, 1, 3
Classified: 2, 1, 3 (Guild representation only)
Faculty declined to rank the options; M. Wood stated they had decided to present the options to the full faculty, explore other possibilities, and attempt to create a better solution (Option 4).
The meeting was adjourned at 3:45.