REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Facilities Planning Committee (FPC) meeting notes
October 5, 2007
In attendance: Tim Flanagan, chair of the committee, Scott Thomason, Ray Kingsbury,
Mike Mendoza, Mark Winter, Todd Olsen, Paul Agpawa, Leslie Haddock, Tracey
Thomas, Bill Connors, Michael Bailey, Stephen McCollum(by phone CRDN) and David
Maki (by phone CRMC), Ginger Felt (meeting notes)
The formulation of a Facilities Planning Committee (FPC) was identified as a need in our
Accreditation Report. The recommendations from this committee will be used in
conjunction with the work of the Coordinated Planning Team in the development of a
RCCD Facilities Master Plan. Members of the FPC include representatives from the
ADA Transition Plan Committee, Faculty, Classified, students, representatives from the
Del Norte and Mendocino Centers, AMC (Administration, Management and
Confidentials), representatives from technology, facilities, student services, the CR
Safety Committee, as well as a community member. The appointment of two students to
this committee has not yet occurred. The committee intends to meet every two weeks
during the Fall semester, and quarterly thereafter.
The committee members will provide information and updates to those not in attendance,
as well as being responsible for disseminating information to their respective
constituents.
Scott Thomason announced that an all-college meeting for construction projects
information is planned for November, and will include consultants Frank Bickner of
LACO Associates and Joe Sutton, Structural Engineer as well as representatives from the
Community Colleges State Chancellors Office, and hopefully, representatives from the
Division of State Architect and CGS.
Facilities planning took an unanticipated change in direction in 2006 due to the changes
in laws that were implemented after the construction of the RCCD Eureka Campus in the
1960’s, 1970’s and 1990’s. The close proximity of earth quake faults to the Physical
Science, Life Science, Former Library, and the Student Services/Administration
Buildings has caused us to change our plans of renovating these buildings to constructing
two new “State Funded” buildings of the Student Services/Administration/Theater
Building and the new Academic Building. There is a state restriction that we can’t spend
more than half of the cost of a remodel of what it would cost to construct a new building.
Since the remodeling cost would far exceed this in attempting to address seismic issues
alone, the state would not approve our plans. Because of the seismic conditions and
current laws, State agencies recognized that construction of new replacement buildings
on state approved alternate building sites best addressed district and state liability. The
State committed $50M to $70M in state facility bond funding to pay for these new
buildings if the district could submit acceptable plans for them within two months.
Our local Q bond funds would be used for new furniture and equipment for those new
buildings that the state funds do not cover. The district is very fortunate that with this
$50M to $70M state funding infusion, our local general obligation bond funding will go
much further towards the other projects. The Chancellor’s Office did sequence the order
in which the two new buildings would be constructed based on state timelines and their
funding structures.
Per this state sequence of the two new state funded buildings, the Student Services/
Administration/Theater building will be built first, followed by the construction of the
Academic Building on the site where the former Student Union building had been.
State funding for all of the plans and construction of the Student Services/
Administration/Theater building has been secured, as well funding for the planning of the
Academic Building, from the 1D state facilities bonds already passed by the voters in
2006.
Scott has new information from the Chancellor’s Office that the funding for the
construction of the Academic Building may also be confirmed from the State facilities
bonds that have already been passed. Scott should have official confirmation regarding
this next week.
The existing Student Union building housing the bookstore, cafeteria, DSPS areas,
student study areas, and meeting rooms, is outdated with respect to seismic requirements,
and is located on the only approved building site large enough for the larger new
Academic building. A new Student Union will be built on a different approved site,
funded by local bonds, and the existing Student Union will be demolished after the
student union functions have been moved to the new building.
The Master Plan as it currently exists will be put on the website as a single electronic
document under the accreditation area within a week. Accreditation pointed out that we
don’t have all parties involved in broad-based communication, and Scott shared that it is
one purpose of this Facilities Planning Committee to improve interaction district-wide.
Project management, technical staff, and maintenance personnel have been fully
immersed and working overtime for the Del Norte and Mendocino Coast Centers’
construction to have those locations ready for Fall semester classes.
The Nursing and Dental area remodeling in the AT building is the next phase of the
Eureka campus construction, and project management has been working closely for many
months with the HO director, faculty and staff for those areas. Scott and Tim Flanagan
reiterated that as each project approaches the time when input is needed from
administrators, staff and faculty affected in that area, meetings are scheduled and input is
received from the users. Joe Porras, the architects and project management, facilities
managers and administration will all be meeting with the various constituencies for the
future plans in the new buildings.
Project management and their professional consultants have worked closely with the
functions that are incorporated into the new Student Union to formulate their plans. The
Bookstore and Dining Services managers have addressed their respective areas with
consultation from their staff. This same consultation has initially occurred with the
occupants of the new Student Services and Administration building, and will continue to
evolve. The Facilities Planning Committee is expected to be an integral part of future
progress towards working drawings and space allocation for personnel placement in both
of the other new buildings. Student Services has internally met many times to refine their
areas, and provide inclusion of all areas within their purview. The administrative areas
occupying the new building have been involved with the plans and revisions on an
ongoing basis.
Keith Snow-Flamer is assisting with identifying students for this committee, and Mark
Winter will share at the Senate meeting. Input is coming in from a variety of sources,
including the Institutional Effectiveness Committee, and other administrative steering
committees. The next meeting will be held on Friday, October 19, 9:00-10:00 a.m.;
location to be determined.