MINUTES OF MEETING
January 26, 2004
The meeting was called to order by Co-Chair Diann Corral at 5:45 PM.
Committee members present were Igor Kagan, Marshall Long, Jerry Fagin, Steven Manning, Asta Criss, Jennifer Brogin, Co-Chair Diann Corral, and Co-Chair Kenn Phillips (represented by Ms. Liz Florio of the Economic Alliance). Those absent were Sally James, William Mosley, Jim Leahy, and Laurie Lavine. (Mr. Mosley had notified the recording secretary that he had an unexpected and unavoidable conflict; as had Ms. James. Ms. Lavine and Mr. Leahy did not attend, and were not represented.)
Others present were Dr. Tyree Wieder, College President, and Jeanne Rubin, Executive Assistant to President Wieder, acting as recording secretary, taking the minutes of the meeting. No members of the public were in attendance.
Co-Chair Corral called for public comments, and Ms. Criss took the opportunity to inquire on the progress of the bus way, and the Valley College bus stop. Mr. Fagin responded that 2005 is when they are expected to open. Ms. Criss then wanted to know if the bus stop will have the college's name on it. Dr. Wieder said that it will.
Co-Chair Corral then called for Agenda item 2. Mr. Fagin made a motion, duly seconded by Ms. Criss, to approve the draft minutes of the Committee's meeting on November 17, 2003, as submitted, which motion was unanimously approved.
Co-Chair Corral then called for Agenda Item 3. Dr. Wieder yielded the floor to Mr. Manning, asking for a report from him as liaison to the District Citizens Oversight Committee.
Mr. Manning reported that December, 2003 was the latest meeting of the DCOC. The focus right now, he told the members, is community outreach. The District is spending large amounts of money on the campus projects, and they are trying to determine ways in which the local businesses in the community can be a part of this. The District's goal is to develop a plan to get local, small and emerging businesses to represent 28% of the Prop A/AA contracting. A proposal has been put forward that contractors bidding must demonstrate that they have made at least three attempts to contact three sub-contractors with who they have never worked before, and that these three sub-contractors fit the description of local, small and/or emerging companies. Mr. Manning stated that his concern is the quality of the product. That is, contractors may very well work consistently with certain sub-contractors because they know them to be reliable and to do good work. The LACCD also wants advertising for bids to be placed in local newspapers. The District is also considering requiring a "viewing room" at each campus so less sophisticated potential bidders will have an easier time examining contract documents, blue prints, etc. Mr. Manning said that so far, 83% of the money spent on the bond projects has gone to local businesses. There are, he reported, $600 million in projects under contract currently, with twenty-six small projects having been completed.
Dr. Wieder said that she believes LAVC's Project Director does have a "viewing room" now. She went on to say that she considers the 28% goal laudable, but observed that the reality is that the LACCD contracting process is terribly daunting.
Mr. Manning then yielded the floor back to Dr. Wieder to give her report to the members. She passed out two handouts, a hard copy of KPMG's PowerPoint presentation, "Annual Proposition A Bond Program Review" given to the LACCD Board of Trustees on January 14, 20004, and a "Process Methodology" template prepared by URS Corporation for the LAVC projects (True and exact copies of the two handouts are attached hereto.) Dr. Wieder reviewed the handouts with the members.
Dr. Long observed, "When we started out, we got projected costs that were Śmade up'. Now we are getting real numbers, but they are six months old - - too old to do anything about." Dr. Wieder acknowledged Dr. Long's point, and proceed to give the committee some background on Larry Eisenberg taking over from Mary Lee as the District's Facilities Planning and Development Executive Director. She said that Mr. Eisenberg's involvement will get a lot of things "on track". "You will," she said, "be getting reports on a more regular basis." Dr. Long responded, "This report [referring to the KPMG handout] is District-wide, and not specific to this campus. That is even more mind boggling."
Dr. Wieder acknowledged that this must be remedied. She returned to the KPMG report, and called the committee's attention to page 9. She pointed out that one of the problems Valley has is that the software in use can recognize Proposition A and AA funds, but not state money. For example, Valley has $14 million of state money to use for the Allied Health/Sciences project, but the software system "won't allow us to use it." She went on to tell the members that L.A. Southwest College has changed out their Project Management firm, and that most campuses have changed out their Project Directors (i.e. the equivalent of Alix O'Brien with URS here at LAVC). She observed that the contract language developed by the LACCD's General Counsel's office has caused delays in getting consultants and contractors under contract, because the requirements are such that those in private industry have no experience with contractual provisions such as those being required.
Dr. Wieder also told the committee that she feels she is devoting so much time to the bond projects at Valley that it is necessary for her to "pull back" and to ask her Vice President of Administration to become more involved. She said she felt that her time commitment is to the point of being a detriment to her role as college president.
She informed the members that re-baselining of the budget will once again have to take place. This was done just before the holidays in order to merge Proposition A and Proposition AA funds. However, she, said, she has not signed the new budget document because she discerned the following issues:
1. The budget for the new Central Plant is excessive ($32 million). "This figure, if accurate, will really cut into our renovation/remodeling. I am requiring verification. A third party peer review is being done. I am not criticizing Chevron. They have done some very good work for us. However, we need to examine this proposed budget item very carefully."
2. "Towards the bottom of the list of projects, the new Technology Building was omitted. It is a lower priority project, but nonetheless must be included."
3. "Even though the current software did not allow inclusion of the $14 million in state funds for the AHS project, it must be included.
Returning to the topic of the Central Plant budget, Dr. Wieder told the committee a "cautionary tale." One campus, she said, had a project budget that went from $25 million to $40 million. This cannot be allowed, because it devastates your projects at the end of your list." She then called the members' attention to the items listed on Page 16 of the KPMG report, and told them that these "fix it" items will take approximately $500,000 off the nine colleges' monies, but will provide important improvements in the process.
She went on to say that, as far as she is concerned, the college's schedule is slipping a bit. For example, groundbreaking for the Plant Facilities building is now moved back to September.
Dr. Long commented about the DSA, pointing out that this is not a "one stop shop." They get your documents, and then send them back with a Śgazillion' changes unless they [the architects/contractors] are smart and grease the skids. That is, talking with the DSA people during the process and anticipating the changes." Dr. Wieder agreed, and told Dr. Long that the college's architects have been doing this. Part of the hiring process, she explained, is to query all applicants about their DSA experience.
Mr. Fagin asked what is the primary power source in the Central Plant, and Dr. Wieder told him that it is electricity.
Dr. Long returned to the topic of reports that are needed by the Citizens' Committee. "Usually you have budgeted amounts and real amounts. If we are going to do our job, we need to know what is spent. We are not getting that information. Dr. Wieder responded that she is not getting it either. Dr. Long said, "You should be asking for that, too. It is not the absolute numbers. It is the comparison of the budget to what is being spent." Dr. Wieder explained that she does receive reports from URS, but the reports are in a different format that keeps changing. Dr. Long said, "They have that information, and it should not be a problem for URS to generate a monthly report. I do not need a twenty-five-page report. But I do need a budget number and an actual number that I can compare."
Mr. Fagin inquired if Dr. Wieder can ask URS to standardize their reporting. Dr. Wieder answered him by saying, "Yes. I have to this point been so deeply involved in moving projects along, rather than expenditures. I need to do it the other way around. Let me look at the reports I do get, and locate the reports for you." Dr. Long said that he would rather see the numbers too early than too late. Mr. Fagin asked, "Shouldn't this report include what the budget is for each item and the percentage of that item completed?" Dr. Long agreed, saying that this is another "disconnect". "We assume," he said, "that the percent of the budget spent equates to the percent of the project completed. This is dangerous." Mr. Fagin agreed, saying, "We need to have this information."
Dr. Wieder told Mr. Fagin and Dr. Long that, at the next meeting of the committee, they will receive:
- Original budget numbers
- The amount of money that has been spent
- Adjusted budget numbers
Ms. Corral observed that this is a good time to ask for this information. "Not much has been spent yet, although a lot has been budgeted. It is a good time to insist that URS develop a template that gives us what we need."
Dr. Wieder then turned to the second handout, "Process Methodology", and it was agreed by the members that this will be used as a template in which budget and each project will be filled in using the blocks shown.
Dr. Wieder then reported that Envision Strategies is about to be put under contract and will be working with the Student Body, among other campus groups, to develop a food service plan. The Steinberg Group will help the campus determine where classes currently held in the bungalows will be moved to prior to demolition of the bungalows. An hour-by-hour usage study will be conducted.
Mr. Kagan, referring to the food service plan, asked how the Faculty and Staff get involved in the Envision Strategies project. He asked if there will be a specific committee. Dr. Wieder told him that there will, but that first a survey will be conducted to determine where the campus community wants to see food services located. Ms. Brogin asked whether the problem is the "no name" food service companies presently in use. Dr. Wieder answered her by saying, "No. It is that the food tastes bad." Ms. Corral asked why the campus does not follow the example of CSUN, having Starbucks, Burger King, etc. on campus. Dr. Wieder explained that the LACCD Board of Trustees is "very labor friendly" and will not allow contracting out of the food service. She further explained that the basic problem is the LACCD employment benefits structure. "The benefits are, I think, thirty-seven percent of salary." Mr. Fagin asked if efficiency could be increased; that is, could people be made more productive in order to lower costs. Dr. Long and Ms. Corral both said that, to provide high quality food service, you must spend money on the food, not the employees. Dr. Wieder noted that the college is trying to find other jobs for the employees currently in the food service area since the cafeteria is slated for demolition to make way for the Library Learning Resources Center. Ms. Criss wanted to know if the college is limited in where it can buy the food products. Dr. Wieder told her that it is, for the moment. The college is currently under contract to Orion Foods. Mr. Fagin asked if the students were being consulted about this subject. Mr. Kagan said that he is on the Student Body committee. He told the members, "Everyone goes off campus. The food stinks. Only the people who come to campus by bus and can't get off campus stay and use the cafeteria."
The President's Report having concluded, Ms. Corral called for Agenda Item #4, and there being no items from the floor, proceeded to Agenda Item #5.
There being no further business to come before the committee, pursuant to a motion by Dr. Long, duly seconded by Mr. Fagin, and upon unanimous vote, the meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
By: _______________________________________
Jeanne C. Rubin
Acting as Recording Secretary
