COLLEGE COUNCIL
Friday, March 17 t h , 2006
2 to 3:30 p.m. • Board Room
MINUTES
President Carlson welcomed the College
Council at 2:02 p.m. He provided a brief
overview of today’s meeting, that would
include a presentation on the bond, and a
brief look at the next College Council meeting
where a special meeting will be devoted to
internet access and exercise using Chabot’s
website. The facilities committee will pour
through the projected cuts and see what they
want to do about them and they will do the
legwork to finalize the proposal. The College
Council should review the proposal before it
goes on. Dr. Carlson encouraged College
Council to attend Facilities Meetings.
1) Discussion on Bond: Craig Fernandez of
DMJM gave a presentation on the Bond
Measure. He provided a PowerPoint
Presentation on Measure B and facilities.
Dr. Carlson felt it was important for the
Council to hear this presentation so they
have the facts and are knowledgeable
about the facilities building. Craig is
planning our program and will provide a
25555 Hesperian Boulevard  Hayward CA 94545  Office of the President  (510) 723-6640 or 723-6641  FAX (510) 723-7126
College Council,
Friday, March 17th, 2006
lay-out of the bond and facilities building
and will address the issue and how it will
get resolved.
In September 2003 and prior to that, the
whole talk about the bond measure and
what it would include and the facilities
document and the facilities committee,
the first concept was put to words on
paper and based on historical data at that
time. In March 2004, the bond measure
was passed. Things we were going to see
in the Spring related to November 2005. A
lot of time has passed since 2003. A lot of
the work has resulted in work from
subcommittees
and
the
facilities
committee that we talked about furniture,
room construction, SMART classrooms,
etc., and a lot of various people were
involved in the discussion stages.
History:
Impact of rising costs as it related to this
program. Due to market conditions,
purchasing
power
has
significantly
diminished. The District needs to reassess
the scope of the master plan. Projected
escalation affecgts both colleges and
2
College Council,
Friday, March 17th, 2006
districts. Dr. Carlson said other colleges
are being affected statewide, but the
dollar amounts on the charts pertain to
CLPCCD District. 2 to 4% rise in
escalation in 1999 to 2003; 30% escalation
by 2005; 41% escalation by 2007; 60%
escalation by 2009. We are right in the
middle of the escalation. We are now at a
30% escalation and cost difference. In
dollars, it means, $497.60 passed in 20032004. When the cost is Projected out, the
value is now in the range of $775.4 million.
These reflects program duration from
2003
to
2014.
Chabot
projected
$24,548,271 original bond 07 dollars in
March 2007. Based on September 1 st ,
2003 cost basis with a 3% annual
escalation factor to mid-March 2007. LPC
$208.235.275 and District $48,000 M. The
cost budget takes into consideration land
costs, surveys, demolition, site work,
brick and mortar, furniture, fixtures,
equipment, Architects/Engineers, PM/CM
testing
and
inspection,
design,
construction
(unforeseen
conditions),
suitable contingencies like design, and
actual and projected to mid-point of
construction escalation factors.
The
original bond was based on September
3
College Council,
Friday, March 17th, 2006
2003 dollars and based on the mid-point of
construction with the current data on
escalation and projected mid-points of
construction. The building costs of in
each building were reviewed and updated
for current market conditions. The
objective is to update the projected
construction/project costs to reflect the
current market conditions and anticipated
escalation moving forward. We need to
project
for
future
escalation.
The
escalation at a steep climb was to
November 2005. The projected escalation
gets us at Chabot at $427,500,000. Loss of
purchasing
power
is
$277,400,000
districtwide. We are in competition with
other local bond programs at colleges like
College of San Mateo, Contract Costa
College DVS, Los Medanos, San Joaquin,
Dublin USD, Foothill-De Anza CCD, and we
also deal with a demand for construction
materials for rebuilding for hurricanes,
Iraq
War
and
rebuilding
efforts,
Afghanistan Rebuilding efforts, and global
expansion in China, Asia, India and
Eastern Europe. The average building
cost index was averaging 3% from 1995 to
2003. The State Chancellor’s Office and
the industry recognizes the increases and
4
College Council,
Friday, March 17th, 2006
they propose to Department of Fiance a
30% adjustment in the building guidelines
effective with 2006-2007 FPP. Dept. of
State Architects, the plan checker for all
projects, is expecting an overload of
projects that they are projecting that
reviewing a project greater than $10
million is six months in plain check.
What cost the community in 2004 at $497
million will now cost $775 million due to
escalated costs. We now have a group
that will ensure that the need of the
program is addressed and identified. No
AE will start on the program until a
program definition document is in place.
We need to develop a more detailed
program definition and confirm scope an
facility requirement based upon the
College Educational Master Plans. We
need to define a project reprioritization.
We need to confirm projects into
procurement packages and economies of
scale. We need to reassess level of LEED
certification. We need to accelerate the
construction of new facilities to a five
year timeline and schedule. We will
continue to reassess where we are and
where the budget is going – and adjuct to
5
College Council,
Friday, March 17th, 2006
the budget. We will manage realistic
expectations of facilities/projects that can
be implemented. We need to develop
project scope and budgeting based on
State Chancellor’s Office and Title V
community college space and capacity
standards. We need to include bid
alternatives. By implementing, we need to
maximize the number of projects with
available funding; minimize future loss of
purchasing power, manage stakeholder
expectations
and
complete
projects
faster, and reduce program management
level costs. The primary strategy we will
engage in is speeding up the process at a
weekly cost of $100,000. We will talk
about portables so we can take two
buildings down at once instead of one at a
time. We will have planning meetings on
Saturdays to get the work done. It will be
a huge impact, but we have to expedite
the process. We will talk about priorities,
the first swing at where we want to parcel
the stuff. Most Districts who had early
bonds are already out with their second
bonds. Half way through the building
process, it will be up to college leadership
to decide whether or not to have a second
bond. Community supports construction
6
College Council,
Friday, March 17th, 2006
of community college. We will have to
raise the money further out to finish the
projects. We have to use the money in
hand to building the best we can. LPC is
building mostly new buildings so they are
at an advantage. Here we don’t have that
option as we are occupying most of these
buildings. We were going to build an
instructional building first and a student
services second but now at once, this will
stress faculty the most. Faculty will be in
portables,
the
Butler
Building,
or
whatever space is available. There will be
an impact we will all have to live with.
Value what is the value of athletics versus
humanities – this is a dangerous subject –
getting mine first won’t solve this
problem. We will have afternoon classes
that is a necessity. A percentage of
students stated they cannot attend
classes in the afternoon, so it is possible
it may impact enrollments. We will need to
pay attention to how we market new
students to make up a possible decrease
in enrollment as a result.
Where we are going to go
7
College Council,
Friday, March 17th, 2006
A budget analysis and spreadsheet was
provided as of March 9, 2006. It will be
placed on the Facilities Committee
webpage. Chad stated that the Facilities
website needs to be updated and it has
not been updated for one year. Tim Steele
needs to give the information right away.
The projects have been put into groups.
The first group is the Building 100 project
grand
court,
and
building
200
administration.
$234.5 million is actually what we have to
spend – we thought we had $434. million.
The planning team is assigned to each
program that is being designed. The
program definition is seeing the project(s)
to throughout the construction process.
Year 2: January to March 2007 – athletics,
pool, and tennis courts.
TBP put together the master plan.
2) Meeting Adjournment.
8
College Council,
Friday, March 17th, 2006
NEXT MEETING: Friday, April 7 th , 2006, 2 p.m.,
Room
301,
Internet
Presentation
(Web
Access).
kls
3/17/06
9