Chabot Facilities Committee
Minutes of March 23, 2006, noon
In attendance: Robert Curry (RC), Darrell Dolin (DD), Craig Fernandez (CF), Ken Grace, Gene Groppetti,
Eugene Hale, Cindy Hicks (CH), Rachel LePell (RL), Marge Maloney, Steven Piatetsky, Don Plandke, Ron
Taylor (RT), Dale Wagoner (DW), Melinda Matsuda, Kari McAllister (KM), Keith Mehl, Tim Nelson, Roger
Noyes (RN), Tim Steele (TS), Katerhine Tollifsen, Linnea Wahamaki, Gordon Watt, Wanda Wong,
The meeting began at 12:05 pm
Materials distributed: agenda; minutes from last meeting; DMJM update; DMJM budget spreadsheet dated
March 9, 2006.
Bond measure update: Craig Fernandez, DMJM, distributed a chart with project updates. (Please see
following page.) CF commented generally that much work was under way. CF stressed that although we
need to move quickly, we need to proceed in an organized fashion. Work underway includes
•
•
•
•
Contracts have been set with all the
Architectural and Engineering Firms
An RFQ (Request for Qualifications) was
released for the commissioning of the major
construction projects which will be designed to
conform achieve a LEED Silver certification
Butler Building will be renovated for use of
swing space during construction
Project Planning Teams are being assembled
for PE Complex, General Classrooms, Central
Plant, Temporary Facilities, and the Parking
Lots & Student Access Center
•
•
•
•
•
Art Gallery has only "Punch-List" items to
complete, the Building is currently in useable
condition
Technology Enhanced Classrooms will
commence construction in early-April. Bids for
furniture and AV equipment will be sent out in
April as well
Central Plant still in the decision-making stage
DOVETAIL design with assist with finalizing of
the Standard Faculty-office furnishings spec
Geotechnical measurements & assessments
will start in April. These studies are needed for
the Structural Engineering
Budget Issues: TTS opened discussion on the Budget Proposal as presented at the last meeting. (Please
see attached spreadsheet.)
The first person to speak was Roger Noyes (RN) who touched on the need for work in the Little Theatre, Rm
1250. He noted that it had been previously set to receive $2.2M, but has been deferred under the current
budget. RN stated that the little theatre was constructed in 1965, has 200 seats, and is heavily used for,
performances, class meetings, and public use meetings. Since 1966, the building has received new seats
and carpets, but little else and is lacking in significant aspects. One of the troubled aspects of the theater is
that it does not comply with current ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) codes and in serious need of
improvement. RN passed around photos showing the little theatre as a well worn and lacking ADA
compliance.
RL expressed concern that the IBPC has not had sufficient input into the process. She did note that that
IBPC has not been actively involved in the Facilities committee recently, but that she would have more time
now to participate.
TTS said that Dr. Carlson indicated that the Budget-Adjustment Decisions were not Final, and that they could
be changed. Cindy Hicks asked if funds were available for interim measures to get thru the next, say, 5
years. Bob Curry noted that funds could be used for equipment such as furniture and broken ceiling files
Dr. Taylor asked if there were criteria for which projects would be deferred. TTS said that the criteria were
not discussed in detail at the last meeting.
CF stated that hi-priority items included: mitigating safety issues, projects that might receive time-sensitive
state funding, mitigating the negative declaration items from the environmental impact report (EIR).
RL asked: what is the process, if any, to change the budget-adjustment decisions? TTS noted that no
change-process has been currently defined. GGropetti noted that one criterion for project planning should be
increasing the enrollment and/or efficiency for the college. RL: are these changes consistent with the college
mission and mission of the Facilities Committee? DW said identification of "pressure points" could be a good
first step in setting priorities. RN noted that the Little Theatre was perhaps not properly appreciated for its
quite-dated conditions.
As a matter of explanation for budget matters, CF said that the original budget allowed gutting buidlings to
bare walls & floors. The current budget issues changed the plan to focus more on lights, floors, accessibility.
DW noted that prioritization is very critical and decisions should be based on student-needs. RT noted that
Dr. Carlson views the Facilities Committee was the vehicle for making and communicating the decisions
associated with the budget committee meeting
TTS asked CF WHEN any alternative plans should be complete. CF: it should be within a month. TTS
suggested that a subcommittee should address in-detail the needs for changes. CH said discussion should
be open to the entire campus. RL expressed concern about the need for the need for a ConsistentPerspective on the Guidelines for these processes, and the need to consistently communicate the guidelines
and decisions. Dr. Taylor suggested that perhaps more concrete and detailed plans would improve the
effectiveness of the communication. CF noted that the overall design philosophy was listed in the Master
Plan, which was drafted with input from the Facilities Committee. TTS noted that the Master Plan does not
set priorities but broad objectives.
Other comments regarding the budget included:
• DD noted that the security office scheduled for 2009 is quite late, given the need to provide all the
security associated with the construction;
• CF on suitability of the Butler Bldg for occupancy by students;
• GG noted that he held classes in the Butler Bldg in previous years.
KM expressed extreme skepticism about the mistakes made to-date. As a taxpayer he expressed severe
dismay about the management of the current theater project. He noted that many other taxpayers are
extremely irritated as well by the cost overruns. He also expressed strong and passionate concerns about
the competency of the A&E firm AEDIS. They loose input, show up too infrequently, and do not have many
satisfied customers/clients.
We will have an Ad Hoc meeting Next Week to further refine the discussions and to help further the budget
adjustment process. Next meeting is an ad-hoc meeting on March 29 to discuss the project budget only. The
next regularly scheduled meeting is April
TS will ask Wayne Phillips about his subcommittees plans for the evaluation metrics for the tech enabled
classrooms. CH suggested using the evaluation system used at the college of San Mateo. She noted that
DOVETAIL helped CSM with similar issues.
TTS asked for changes to the minutes - none suggested. Minutes from the 3/9/06 meeting were approved
without comment.
The meeting adjourned at 1:20 P.M.
Notes respectfully compiled by B. Mayer