DRAFT
Redwoods Community College District
Facilities Planning Committee (FPC)
Meeting Notes March 27,2008
i. In attendance: Tim Flanagan, Tricia Hawkins, Paul Agpawa, Stephen McCollum (in
person), Tracey Thomas, Michael Bailey, Mike Mendoza, Roxanne Metz, Danny Walker,
Ray Kingsbury, Frank Martinez, Mark Winter, Debbie Williams, and special guest Ron
Cox
I. Agenda Item #1:
a. Meeting notes from March 21, 2008 approved. Note: Correction on page two
paragraph 3 of March 21 minutes: Line reading ““Why” needs to separated from
justification…”; added “be” to read ““Why” needs to be separated…”.
b. It was remarked that a numbering/outline system on minutes would help to define
areas for discussion/correction. Also that action items should be noted and given unique
identifiers that would trace them to specific agendas.
c. On that note, Michael Bailey noted three Action Items from the March 21 minutes:
20080321.3.11
20080321.3.2
20080321.3.3
The Blackboard issue should be our first “Action Item”.
The Database of Classrooms will be an action item.
This proposed action item could be considered covered by March
27th Agenda Item #4.
d. The discussion regarding 20080321.3.2 covered what the proposed format of the
Database of Classrooms would entail. The format needs to be one that would facilitate
the best usage by the FPC for its objectives. The suggestion that this database would be
useful for several different applications on campus was agreed upon by all. Several
different scenarios were suggested, from embedded chips and/or dedicated IP addresses
to keep track of items, to simply getting a current physical inventory and coming up with
a plan to update it as changes happen. A barcode inventory of current major expense
items as defined by State mandates does exist and is being updated at this time by Matt
Hanson and Ron Cox (they are verifying what exists and where it is currently located). It
was noted and agreed that there is no substitute for an actual inventory, and that keeping
track of exactly where everything is at a given time should be a future endeavor. Having
the resources to make all classrooms “Smart” would alleviate the need to “borrow” from
one class to another.
e. What we can do now is create a master list, enter it into a database, and tie all
information into the Technology inventory. The list would hopefully be extended to less
expensive items such as network printers, chairs, tables, etc. A database such as could be
accessed generally by the College staff, faculty and outside groups would be very useful.
1
Action Item identifiers are denoted as follows: yearmonthday(of meeting).agendaitem#.list #
A point and click virtual mapping of classrooms would be ideal, but the costs would be
prohibitive, adding up to far more than the Action Plan guideline. Roxanne mentioned
that Institutional Research would find such an inventory highly valuable, and might be
willing to collaborate. For now, we get started on a list, and then figure out what we
want it to look like – the ultimate system and the way to develop it. A “cross-functional”
Action Plan with IR – with money from Title III that is software dedicated – was
proposed.
II. Agenda Item #2:
a. The Facilities Master Planning Development Team (FMPDT) has been meeting for the
last 2 days, and the parameters, etc. of the FMPDT will be available on Blackboard, soon,
thanks to Steve Stratton. Bert Peachy/Consultant has been at these meetings.
b. The committee has been searching the web for drafts of other college Master Plans.
These have been helpful for getting input. The committee is meeting again twice in April
and again in May. They need to develop a first draft by September with the help of Bert
Peachy. FPC will also work with the same architect. Other colleges have hired
architectural firms to help them develop their plan. It was decided that we would do
better financially to stick with the same architectural firm that is currently working on our
Bond-funded projects.
c. Tim brought up the three important elements that are being pushed by Accreditation:
1. User driven 2. Data informed 3. Integration with other needs, uses, planning, etc. All
of the above must be well documented!
d. The FMPDT will be included in the http://inside.redwoods.edu website. Roxanne
mentioned that the site is undergoing “revamping” (on an aside: the FPC organizational
activity chart can be found at
http://inside.redwoods.edu/accreditation/CROrgMapOct2007.pdf and will include more
links to facilities planning. Roxanne verbally highlighted the “Planning” verbage in the
FMPDT title; it represents a framework for the college - not just a plan, but a process for
planning. It was also brought up that some processes/documents that had been “on hold”
since the Accreditation issue came up have since been updated and that new formats can
be found on the inside redwoods site, now.
e. The old Facility Use Handbook could be “fused” into future documents, though it will
need some updates. The present handbook is dated 1993-94, and there have been
remodeling/alterations to some areas.
f. The question of the FMPDT formation and the lack of representation from satellite
campuses, etc. were brought up. It was explained that the input/outcomes keep growing,
and that everybody will continue to have input. Leslie Haddock and Martha Davis are
using Visio to create flowcharts, and there will be access on Blackboard that will allow
instant input by all factions of the college. The Team will constantly ask for input.
Demographics and educational needs of each site will be devised. It is a “Framework
Group” and will be flexible.
III. Agenda Item #3:
a. The FMPDT includes 3 members of the FPC: Tim Flanagan, Mike Mendoza, and
Leslie Haddock. It was noted that two other FMPDT member were guest in today’s FPC
meeting: Ron Cox and Roxanne Metz. Also noted was that the FMPDT member list on
today’s agenda needed correcting by the addition of Tony Sartori to the list.
IV. Agenda Item #4:
a. Per a draft of the schedule of the Accreditation Visit team on April 4th, possibly only
team leaders will be attending interview sessions. The schedule may change before the
visit. The “groups” may not be teams/committees but by Recommendations 1, 5, and 7,
with representative members of campus organizations attending each “Focus” session.
b. The “Evidence Room” has all pertinent documentation from the FPC, including a
handbook, SWAT analysis, the feedback on PR processes, meeting notes and agendas,
etc. and will include the agenda and meeting notes for today’s meeting. Everything in the
Evidence Room will be what the Accreditation Visit Team will see. The visiting team
will be focused on what is pertinent to the Recommendations. The documentation is in a
3-ring binder, which facilitates the addition of current information such as minutes and
agendas.
c. Ron asked if the FPC would like to have he and Matt Hanson be present at a future
FPC meeting to discuss the inventory activity, and it was agreed that this would be
helpful.
d. Regarding Program Review Interviews, it is agreed that the FPC has had a good startoff, and that the processes can and will improve. Our input goes to CPC and on to the
web, and Martha notifies different areas which “closes the loops”.