San Mateo County Community College District
Bond Oversight Committee
Minutes of the May 6, 2005 Meeting
Members Present: Coleman Campbell, Stanley Gross, Marion McDowell, Bill Nack,
Ruth Nagler, Marta Bookbinder
Members Absent: Rose Jacobs Gibson, Jim Wyatt, Leah Cowan, Patrick Cheng,
George Cresson
Others Present:
Barbara Christensen, Karen Freeman, Ron Galatolo, Jim Keller, Jose
Nuñez, Shirley Kelly
The meeting convened at 12:15 in Building 1 Room 115 at the College of San Mateo.
Marion McDowell chaired the meeting in the absence of Jim Wyatt. The order of the
agenda was revised, with item 4, Review of Cumulative Report on Expenditures, moved
to item 3.
Minutes.
The minutes from the February 3, 2005 meeting were approved as presented.
Review of Cumulative Report on Expenditures (March 31, 2005)
Kathy Blackwood gave a brief overview of bond expenditures through March 31, 2005.
She noted that expenditures and commitments are at $190 million out of the total bond
amount of $207 million total and that 92% of the projects are started. She also noted that
67% of the funds are either expended or committed. She noted that the numbers reflect
that projects are moving along.
Barbara Christensen noted that when the District issued the first $98 Million of the $207
authorized in bond funds, there was some discussion about the large amount of the issue.
She noted that laws and regulations require a District to issue only what could reasonably
be spent or committed in a three year period. She said that we are right on target in
expending the amounts appropriately and within that timeline.
Chancellor Galatolo also noted that on both issues of this bond, the timing in terms of the
interest rates has been excellent and that the lower interest rate achieved translates in a
lower cost to taxpayers.
Update on Districtwide Projects (Jose Nuñez)
Executive Director Nuñez recapped the tour that had just been completed by many of the
Bond Oversight members. The group saw the athletic fields, which were not a bondfunded project, the Child Development Center, asphalt and other infrastructure at
Building 34 (the Science building) and Building 9, and the cogen facility. Director Nunez
noted that the plant is producing ½ of the electricity consumption at the college as well as
heat for the swimming pool. He also noted, in response to questions about the amount of
gas used to run the plant, that the plant is powered by a gas turbine, but the gas used is
still less than the amount used before the installation..
There was also a discussion regarding the difference between a “facelift” project and a
“modernization” project.. Director Nuñez explained that a “facelift” includes paint,
carpet, window finishing and the like and gave Building 16 as an example. As an
example of full modernization, he spoke about Building 18, noting that on concrete
buildings of these types the structure itself might last 100’s of years but the building’s
systems (pipes, etc.) only have a life expectancy of 25yrs. Building 18 is receiving a
“facelift” as well as seismic upgrade, infrastructure repairs and ADA improvements.
Karen Freeman talked about the progress of the Science Building (Building 36) and noted
that the “topping off” ceremony had been held. Plumbing is in progress and electrical
will be next. She noted that there had been some permitting issues with the Division of
State Architect (DSA) regarding the planetarium because of the unique nature of that
structure but that architects are working with DSA to solve the issues.
Nuñez noted that several projects at Skyline and Cañada had recently been given the goahead by the DSA.
Discussion of All Sources of Funding for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
(Christensen)
Director Christensen gave the breakdown on all sources of the CIP funding including:
$207M bond, $42M State Capital Outlay, $22M redevelopment, $3M Scheduled
Maintenance, $9M Bond Interest, $25M donations, $6M Skyline Student Fee, $16M land
sale. Additionally, another $68M is anticipated from state sources. Total revenue from
all sources is approximately $398M.
The discussion then focused on the total need for the district’s CIP Program. Director
Christensen noted that when the Board of Trustees first decided to place a bond measure
on the ballot, the total need for facilities needs for new construction and renovation was
estimated to be approximately $500M. Since the passage of the bond some five years
ago, increasing construction costs and newly identified problems and needs have
increased the total need to $600M. An exact amount of remaining need is being
analyzed. This led to the discussion of the possibility of a new Bond Issue.
Discussion of Potential New Bond (Galatolo)
The Chancellor noted that it will be important to complete the vision that has been
started. Leveraging funds is important and funding sources including private, state and
local (redevelopment and bond) will all be needed to complete the College District’s
vision for facilities that meet the need of 21st century learners. He mentioned campus
gateways and smart classrooms as examples of how the vision had changed with the work
that has been done thus far. He noted that the Board has not decided to proceed with a
new bond issue but has given their approval to proceed with a survey of voters to test
their willingness to pass another bond measure.
He also noted that the original bond monies had been spent as planned—on health and
safety, roofs, and science buildings. The funds have been spent on time and on budget.
However, there is still much to be done to complete the vision. The survey will help
determine whether the District has the community’s support.
At this point a committee member asked about the status of student enrollment and how
that affects the need for a new bond. The Chancellor indicated that enrollment in the
mid-1990s was down. In 2000-03, enrollments climbed dramatically due to the dot com
bust. Currently enrollments are still higher than the 1990’s but less than the 2001-03
peak.. He also noted that the needs of the community are changing.
Coleman Campbell asked about the effect of distance learning on enrollments. The
Chancellor noted that Distance Learning offerings serve to supplement existing offerings.
There are only certain things that can be done online and that it isn’t possible to abolish
curriculum in all areas. He pointed out that there are lots of hands-on subjects at the
colleges i.e. nursing, dental, etc. that cannot be addressed by on-line classes
Marta Bookbinder noted that she thought campus beauty (ie Campus gateways) was not a
priority and that the focus of facility improvements should be to serve the students.. The
Chancellor noted that the colleges are focal points in the community and should address
the needs of the community. He noted that the survey would ask the community what
they would support and the bond projects list would reflect that.
Barbara Christensen noted that she had a conversation with John Horgan who noted that
$600 Million in total project costs were huge compared to local high school districts.
Director Christensen noted that the District encompasses more than 500 acres, 66
buildings, 1500 employees and 40,000 students. The District offers more than 90
vocational programs many of which require highly specialized, high-tech facilities.
Because of these things, she noted, the District has a complexity and depth the school
districts don’t have. Director Christensen noted that the cost of the last bond to the
average homeowner is approximately $7.00 per $100,000 of assessed valuation.
Chancellor Galatolo noted again that the Board had taken no action on this matter as of
yet.
Coleman Campbell asked about receiving additional maintenance dollars from the state
and whether there was any likelihood of the District receiving monies from that source.
Chancellor Galatolo noted that those State dollars are unstable but the District vigorously
applies for these funds each year.
Stan Gross noted that in terms of timing for another bond issue, he believes the District
should wait to see what happens with other initiatives on the ballot. Chancellor Galatolo
stressed that the approach regarding whether or not to place a bond on the ballot must to
be scientific.
Marta Bookbinder referenced an article she had read about the community college
student population and asked specifically about offerings for Seniors. Chancellor
Galatolo noted that Sacramento legislators see the primary mission of Community
Colleges as transfer. However, he noted that the District serves the greater needs of the
community including transfer, workforce development, remedial education, and lifelong
learning.
Ruth Nagler noted that Superintendent Sam Johnson had spoken highly of what the
community college district had done for his school district. Ron Galatolo noted that the
Board of Trustees had held a study session in April regarding relationships with the
District’s local high schools. The Colleges provide college prep and college level classes
among other things.
Next Meeting Date
The next meeting will be held August 15th, the day of the groundbreaking for Cañada’s
Library.
Committee Members Comments/requests for future agenda items
The meeting adjourned at 1:20 PM.