Los Angeles Community Colleges
770 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90017 • 213/891-2000
City • East • Harbor • Mission • Pierce • Southwest • Trade-Technical • Valley • West
Administrative Offices • Mark Drummond, Chancellor
Bond Steering Committee
LACCD Sixth-Floor Video Conference Room
8:30 a.m., March 3, 2009
In attendance: David Beaulieu, Alexia Nalewaik, Dan Minkoff, Don Gauthier, Coby King, Roland
Chapdelaine, Jack Daniels, Tom Hall, Stu Silverstein, Camille Goulet, Jamillah Moore, Ken
Dan Minkoff presented minutes of the February Bond Steering meeting.
3. Meeting date and time
Committee agreed to move the April meeting to 8:30 a.m. on April 14 to accommodate faculty
who might be on vacation during the regularly scheduled time (first Tuesday of the month).
4. Draft art program resolution
Tom Hall said due to interest from the trustees, Larry drafted a resolution to use bond funds for
public art. It will reviewed by the cabinet on March 6 and, with enough timely feedback, will be
submitted to the board at end of March. Alexia said this would need details to ensure bond funds
expenditures are within boundaries of newly renovated or new buildings. Jamillah asked that if
architects would be encouraged to include art as part of a building? Chip said that, for example, a
mosaic on the floor or wall is a component that’s part of building as opposed to sculpture or
stand-alone art. Alexia said that if the art was part of landscaping, it would have to be something
that can’t be moved. David said he sees nothing wrong with murals and paintings but we need
more. Don said that if you have art in a building, you need to design space for it, especially using
design build. Tom mentioned that design build is very accommodating to that process.
5. Retro-commissioning status
Tom provided a handout explaining the concept of retro-commissioning, which previously was
shared with the cabinet. Tom explained the evolution of commissioning. Props. A/AA projects
didn’t have whole building commissioning, which incorporates operations, safety and how they
interact, but will be included in Measure J buildings. Retro-commissioning takes the concept of
whole building commissioning and applies it to existing buildings to make sure they operate
effectively and efficiently and maintain that over a period of time, which is a gap in the handover
770 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90017 • (213) 891-2000
Bond Steering Committee – Minutes
March 3, 2009
Page 2 of 4
to campus maintenance. By optimizing the use of buildings, then there is a gain in comfort,
satisfaction, energy usage, and equipment life. The concept is for each campus to look at existing
buildings and decide where to apply retro-commissioning.
Don asked how much it costs? Tom explained that to survey buildings is not expensive, but to
correct problems could be depending on the type of issues discovered.
Alexia asked about buildings that have been completely closed out. Camille said that as long as a
building is on the project list, it should be fine. Tom further explained that retro-commissioning
will come out of college funds; whole building commissioning for Measure J projects will come
out of districtwide funds.
David asked how retro-commissioning relates to the energy audit? Tom said the energy audit
process is opportunity to look at anything in a building that can be replaced to save dollars that
would replay a demand management contract, which is financed through savings.
6. Bond program PR RFP status
Coby left the room for the discussion.
Stu said a selection meeting is scheduled for March 10. He received 14 submissions and a review
committee scored the proposals and narrowed a finalist list to five firms. The full selection
committee includes Mark Rocha, Mona Field, Angela Reddock, David Isaias, Larry Eisenberg,
Dan Minkoff, Lynn Winter-Gross and Stu. Also, a meeting with the campus PIOs is scheduled for
Thursday to get feedback on the incumbent firm and explore other ideas. They finalists are
MWW, Edelman, Burson Marstellar, Hill & Knowlton, Paine PR/Consensus Planning Group. The
contract will be for $300,000 per year, plus $180,000 per year, per campus for events.
7. District Academic Senate and the bond processes
David said he’s been receiving complaints about several issues and has talked to the chancellor
The first issue is regarding FF&E. David said there are questions about the range of choice, the
end process, inferior quality, and who is responsible and what do we do if get wrong items, how
to send stuff back, what if it’s broken, etc.? Don said it seems that the process is held up while
working on master agreements for buildings that already are built. David said he’s heard about the
condition of the new classroom building at Harbor, and that is has a blackboard you can barely
see and podiums bolted to floor and can’t move. Camille said she will ask Larry and James to
address those issues at next bond steering meeting. David said he will ask June Smith and Linda
Spink to offer more details.
The second issue, David said, is that he has heard complaints from Harbor about real estate
transactions. Tom explained that real estate transactions are driven by the college. Camille said
having shared governance meetings on campus about what a particular transaction would require
Bond Steering Committee – Minutes
March 3, 2009
Page 3 of 4
is part of the due diligence process and that nobody imposing real estate transactions upon the
college. Tom said that the district assists colleges with what they desire. Camille added that the
district provides a consultant to assist buyers, but the district is not directing the college.
David said another issue is the general apprehension about the design build process, given some
snags he heard about Mission. Tom pointed out that Mission hasn’t started design build
construction. David expressed concern about the short timeline for making decisions. Don added
that there are concerns about making changes after a project goes to DSA. Jack said that changes
can be made, but it is expensive. Users need to be involved. Southwest did make changes in
design build projects, which was expensive, but each college needs to make that decision. Tom
said that design build is a faster process, but it allows bond dollars go farther because you don’t
have time inflation. He said that looking at projects at Southwest and Trade Tech, there are some
issues to work through, but the projects saved a couple million dollars.
David suggested that maybe there should be some training sessions for the user groups. Alexia
said that the performance audit showed that we have clearly defined roles, and that maybe training
would help. Camille said that before Prop. A, even the word programming was new vocabulary
simply because we didn’t have money for it. However, we have learned all sorts of things that
have become industry best practices and we think design build is of a similar nature and an
educational approach would help. She added that design build requires a more nimble approach,
but there is nothing wrong with that. Jamillah said we don’t all have the same information at same
time, so invite us to DAS to make sure we have same information.
Don outlined another issue: He said the district’s renewable energy program is mandatory and
was told that solar plan presented to us had to be installed. He said that the placement of the solar
farm was a surprise to the college, and it already vetoed having large-scale solar farm. Camille
said those decisions are made at college, not mandated by the district. Don said the VP of
administrative services told him that the campus had to abide by the plan. Tom said that’s not the
case. He doesn’t know who discussed it, but assured Don that the district has sent people out and
the colleges were supposed to have input. Camille said that if Tom Jacobsmeyer has that
perspective, then Tom Hall or Larry need to fix that perception. Jamillah said the communication
also depends on your relationship with campus CPM.
David said the larger issue is the perception of heavy handedness from facilities. Another example
is the discussion in the energy task force about central plants and that every campus agreed except
Trade and Mission, and he knows that that process didn’t exist at East. David agrees with Ernie
and there’s a history with not everything being local and that’s coming back to bite us now in
these energy meetings; there’s a level of suspicion. Chip said that when you start hearing we will
be energy independent, that every campus has to invest, the individual college decision is
perceived as being secondary instead of primary. We get communications that are large and
visionary, but we need communication also in the implementation component. There’s an
impression and that has to be dissipated. Don said they like the whole concept but hate to see it
get butchered by people not understanding.
8. Firestone/South Gate follow up
Bond Steering Committee – Minutes
March 3, 2009
Page 4 of 4
David said since Chris Turk was at the February meeting, this was a very useful agenda item and
subsequently Larry came out to a facilities meeting at East. He explained the opportunity to buy
an adjacent lot and now people are much more excited about it.
9. LEED Platinum update
Tom reviewed a visit to a LEED Platinum building in Chino. Jack said he was surprised because
when you think about Platinum, you think about glass, etc., but this was a very plain building. For
Jack, the biggest issue was the M&O cost. At 60,000 square feet the annual electric cost was less
than $170,000 and the cost will run to zero after the solar film is final. Chip asked what the cost
per square foot is, and what is the return and projected savings? Don said we need internal PR
with facts to sell this and David added that there is faculty resistance.
Camille said we went through this when the district initially adopted LEED and now there’s a
better understanding. Now the Platinum standard technology has evolved considerably and there’s
another education process. Tom said that some campuses have buildings that are Silver or Gold
certified, and with the renewable energy program, those certifications will move up one step. Ken
said the issue isn’t so much faculty resistance; it’s more a factor of institutional history because
they have decades of fighting to get things done. So now it’s important to show them that that’s
the past, and the opposition on our campus is the worry about complete loss of local control. The
campus would be more comfortable to say that we will achieve as much as possible, but there
exists the idea that campuses will be required to cut corners or give something up to achieve
Platinum. Tom said the process begins with education, but the focus should not be on the word
“Platinum,” but on the ideas of the building. Some of the LEED points are achieved by having a
recycle program, by having access to public transit, etc. Those aren’t building issues, those are
campus issues that are under local control.
Meeting adjourned at 9:50 a.m.
The Next regular meeting will be at 8:30 a.m. on April 14, 2009 in the district office sixth-floor
video conference room.