FACILITY PLANNING COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDA
Monday, March 19, 2012
2:00 p.m.
LRC 107
1. Call to Order
2. Review meeting notes from February 12, 2012.
3. Items for Discussion
3.1. 101 Corridor sites discussion and recommendation
4. Comments
5. Adjourn
Phone available for Del Norte & Mendocino call-in
CCC Confer Information
PARTICIPANT DETAILS
> Dial your telephone conference line: (888) 886-3951
> Enter your passcode: 605799
PARTICIPANT CONFERENCE FEATURES
*0 - Contact the operator for audio assistance
*6 - Mute/unmute your individual line
REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Meeting of the Facilities Planning Committee
Boardroom
2:00 p.m.
February 13, 2012
Meeting Notes
PRESENT
Dave Bazard, Bill Hole, Anita Janis (phone), Lee Lindsey, Geisce Ly
phone, Theresa Sisson, Maggie White and Lorie Walsh.
CALL TO ORDER
Lee Lindsey called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m.
SUMMARY
NOTES
The summary notes from the January 23 meetings of the Facilities Planning
Committee were approved as presented.
DISCUSSION
FINAL NEEDS
ADDENDUM
Lee reported that so far he has only received 4 completed ranking sheets
from committee members. He will give those who have not yet turned
theirs in a couple of more days to do so. There was discussion regarding
formatting concerns and how the lists were merged to include all projects.
It was decided that after the ranking process is complete the committee will
evaluate the process and report out to the Integrated Planning Committee
(IEC) and then forwarded to Program Review.
There was also discussion regarding the process for completing a project
once funding has been allocated and it was suggested that the author be
notified and instructed to complete a work ticket in Parature.
It was also noted that Doug Edgmon has been appointed as Capital Project
Cost Control Manager and as such he will be on the front ending of
planning and procuring bids for measure Q projects.
BUDGET AND
ACCREDITATION
UPDATE
Lee reported that the news from the Chancellor’s office continues to be
pessimistic and there is concern regarding the number of tax measures on
the November ballot. He explained the apportionment model noting that it
uses estimates of tuition and property tax rates and the state’s revenue
continues to be lower than expected, which means less funding.
There was discussion regarding the possible cost savings of closing the
101 Corridor sites. It was also noted that the auxiliary programs i.e., dining
services, bookstore and residence halls need to operate in the black. There
was also discussion regarding an increase to the student health fee, parking
and limiting the number of concurrently enrolled students.
ADJOURNED
SUBMITTED
3:00 p.m.
lw
AOC Strategies Work Group
Results
I.
Date: 3/5/12
II. Work Group Name and Members
AOC
III.
Description of the Finding or Compliance Issue (include specific standard
sub-level or specific portion of the recommendation addressed)
IIIB.2.b: Physical resource planning is integrated with institutional planning.
The institution systematically assess the effective use of physical resources and
uses the results of the evaluation as the basis for improvement.
IV. Description of Proposed Action
Justify site closures (Arcata and McKinleyville) with evidence. This might include
number of sections scheduled, change in finances,
V. Estimated Completion Date
Dependent on meeting day for Facilities Planning Committee. Expected to be done by
mid March
VI. Rationale for Action
The college has made a significant change to its use of physical resources and must
document (provide evidence) that the decision is tied to data analysis and integrated
planning. It must show it uses the results of evaluation as the basis for this closure.
VII. Program or Departments Affected
Facilities Planning Committee (FPC)
VIII.
Policy or Processes Affected
Integrated Planning Model
IX. Recommended Steps for Full Implementation (Sustainability Plan)
Charges for each of the functional planning committees are required. They are governed
in part by the budget cycle, but there also needs to be a description of the committee and
its list of charges. This needs to be more than a short paragraph on a planning document.
It should be thorough and provided to both committee members and the chair each time
the positions are appointed and at the beginning of each budget cycle.
X.
Documentation/ Evidence
Document from the FPC – A summary of the evaluation and conclusions used to
reach this decision.
Issues to Consider for an Educational Site – PRELIMINARY DRAFT
A goal for an educational site, for example on the 101 corridor, is to reduce distance barriers for
students to take community college classes.
Below is a bulleted list of evidence that represent important considerations from the
Administrative Services Division. A proposal must discuss these and other issues. Additional
student service and instructional considerations need to be considered as well. Proposals must be
reviewed by the Facilities Planning Committee (FPC). FPC makes a recommendation to the
Budget Planning Committee (BPC). BPC makes a recommendation to the
President/Superintendent. The President/Superintendent, in consultation with constituents,
makes a recommendation to the Board of Trustees.
Planning Objectives:
Objective 2.1 – Improve employment best practices
Objective 2.2 – Maintain fiscal stability
Objective 3.4 – Increase data-informed decision-making
Objective 4.1 – Increase employer satisfaction with CR graduates
Objective 4.5 – Enhance the cultural richness of the community
Objective 4.6 – Improve partnerships with area employers
Objective 5.3 – Reduce transportation barriers for students

Student Access to an alternate location other than an existing educational location: To be
valuable, complete programs must be offered at the site, or at least a core of general
education requirements. A hybrid program might include online courses to complete its
program. Otherwise, students must take a class at the site and travel to main campus anyway
to meet their needs. As a result, arguments about reducing commuting costs and time ring
hollow without a cohort based scheduling plan for the site. To meet this objective, the
proposal must include a reasonable multiyear, academic cohort plan.

Existing campus/center stability: A site may draw some students from existing locations,
but a site is not justified if a significant number of students will be sourced from existing
locations. An exception would be if the existing location has an impacted program. To meet
this objective, the proposal must show that students who otherwise would not be served will
be served by the new location, or that savings will be realized through a verified budget
reduction at another location.

Community Education courses offered at the site are more attractive to students because
these programs are typically short courses. Scheduling short courses at Eureka main can be
problematic since a classroom(s) may need to be dedicated to short courses, but might sit
unused during other times in the semester. Also, community education students are often
currently employed and value visiting a smaller, more dedicated site with fewer parking
issues, etc. Community Ed courses also generate self-support revenue which helps offset site
3/19/2012 1:01 PM
-1-
issues to consider for a 101 corridor site.docx
Issues to Consider for an Educational Site – PRELIMINARY DRAFT
costs. To meet this objective, a proposal must include a reasonable multiyear plan to
estimate the number and dollars generated through community education offerings.

Unique services: The site will offer services that are not duplicated at the Eureka main
campus. For example, the facilities available at the SIMS center are not duplicated at the
main campus. It is not a requirement for a site to offer unique services. To meet this
objective, the site must show that its services are unduplicated.

Total Cost of Ownership: A potential site needs to be evaluated on a total cost of ownership
(TCO) basis. In particular, leasing a site where utilities, basic phone service, internet access,
etc. are included in the site costs can help reduce overhead costs for the District in having to
process and pay multiple bills. Also, bundling these costs into a single lease charge creates
predictability about the charges for the District and encourages the owner, for example, to
implement energy efficiency improvements. To meet this objective, the proposal must show
a multiyear pro-forma financial statement that demonstrates that the District can cash flow a
low case or pessimistic forecast without undue risk to the District’s fiscal stability.

Consolidate site offerings: Typically, the total cost of ownership (TCO) of a single larger
site is less than the TCO of multiple smaller sites. Students appreciate having more services
available in a single location. Further, staffing efficiencies can be realized with a single site.
Also, if grant funds are used for a portion of the services, for example to help pay for a single
site to consolidate the SIMS center, Foster Parent Program, and other services, the overall
site costs are lower for all participants and the site generates more overall usage. To meet
this objective, a proposal must include an analysis of existing locations and considerations
for consolidating locations.

Site location: A site should be located near a major transit route, such as a major bus route.
Students can use public transportation to travel to the site. The site should be located close to
or in a population center and have adequate parking; A site located “out of town” is less
desirable. The site should be physically safe, so that the site is not located in an area that
might be unsafe for students, faculty and staff to come and go during the day and at night. A
site should not be located too close to main campus, as such services can be offered at main
campus. To meet this objective, a proposal must include an analysis of the site location.

Accessibility and ADA requirements: Any location that is seriously considered as a
location for offering District services must meet the current standard for applicable ADA and
accessibility requirements. For a new location, the District should avoid “grandfathered” or
otherwise non-compliant locations. To meet this objective, the site must be compliant and
the lease must include strong language requiring the owner to maintain required accessibility
provisions and to cooperate with the District should specific ADA issues arise at any time.

Chancellor’s Office Center Status: The rules for establishing a newly recognized center
(Minimum 500 FTES, with no allowance for the distance from district’s main campus) create
3/19/2012 1:01 PM
-2-
issues to consider for a 101 corridor site.docx
Issues to Consider for an Educational Site – PRELIMINARY DRAFT
a difficult wall for a rural district like CR to overcome, so only larger districts will likely be
approved for new centers. However, it is appropriate to plan a site for the possibility of
gaining center recognition and funding in the future. Failure to consider the basic center
requirements from the Chancellor’s Office might permanently ensure that a particular site
will never achieve center status. To meet this objective, the proposal must include a plan to
meet the basic Chancellor’s Office requirements and to avoid a situation that could cause the
site to be permanently redlined, even if necessary enrollments and other requirements were
met.

Partners: Interested and appropriate community partners willing to help fund the site’s
operating costs help add stability to the proposal and better connect the District to the
community. To meet this objective, the proposal must address potential specific partners and
the attractiveness of the proposal to particular types of potential partners. Also, a realistic
cash flow estimate from partners is required.
3/19/2012 1:01 PM
-3-
issues to consider for a 101 corridor site.docx