Bond Oversight Committee Member Present:
Mr. Scott Folsom

External Members Present:
Mr. Dan Basalone, Associated Administrators of Los Angeles
Mr. Howard Lappin, Los Angeles County Alliance for Student Achievement

Staff Present:
Mr. James A. McConnell, Jr., Chief Facilities Executive
Mr. Guy Mehula, Deputy Chief Facilities Executive, New Construction
Mr. Sam Yoshida, Director, Facilities Contracts
Dr. Chuck Schepart, Program Analyst, Independent Analysis Unit

Mr. McConnell stated that the purpose of today's meeting is to give an overview of the New Construction program. He gave a history of the progress made in the Facilities Services Division (FSD) during the past four years and said that since first arriving at FSD, the following things have been accomplished:

€the FSD website was created,
€the FSD was assigned lawyers to advise in the purchase and acquisition of property, eminent domain proceedings, and the relocation of residents for approximately $800 million worth of land,
€the Construction department of the New Construction branch was created to manage the New Construction program,
€the Facilities Contracts department, solely dedicated to facilities contracts, was established,
€the District's reputation in the construction community has improved,
€the Small Business Outreach program was established, and
€the District secured at least 95 percent of the land required for the completion of the new school construction program.

He also said that to date, 13 new construction projects have been completed including 7 new schools, and 50 projects are under construction.

OVERVIEW OF NEW SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Mehula briefed the Committee on the New Construction program including:

€history and development of the New Construction program,
€budgets developed to achieve the goals of the program,
€different project funding sources,
€differences between Phase I and Phase II,
€organization of the New Construction branch,
€different phases of project construction including identifying and determining need, project development and design, and construction and completion of construction,
€internal program controls and oversight,
€Board and FSD interface,
€anticipated key Board decisions within the next six months, and
€program risks and challenges.

Mr. Mehula, Mr. McConnell, and FSD staff responded to the Committee's questions and concerns regarding the following:

Ms. LaMotte:

€State funding,
€magnets and charters providing seats for local students,
€the Small Business Boot Camp and Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) compliance,
€seat shortage and projected construction timelines, and
€success of the Small Business program during Phase 1 and projected success during Phase II.

Ms. LaMotte suggested that Request for Proposals advertisements be posted in local newspapers in addition to the Los Angeles Times. She also requested that the complete Board receive a presentation on the concept of small learning communities.

Mr. Lauritzen:

€demolition of older school buildings to build newer ones,
€salvage and demolition of buildings,
€community outreach for the March 2004 bond project planning,
€use of Certificates of Participation for new construction projects, and
€maximizing and allocating developer fees.

Mr. Lauritzen requested that he be provided a list of properties that have been set aside by builders and housing developers. He also asked staff to include ratio of teachers to administrators in the planning for Phase II.

Ms. Korenstein:

€the definition of mandatory busing,
€charter and magnet schools,
€reconfiguring elementary and middle school grade levels,
€determining which projects will have competitive athletic facilities included in their design and how schools will share athletic facilities,
€split session feasibility, and
€the impact of the construction program on employment in the Los Angeles area.

Ms. Korenstein requested at the next Committee of the Whole meeting the charter school policy be reviewed and there be information provided regarding how many seats charters are currently providing and will provide in the future to relieve District overcrowding. She also asked that the discussion include a review of test scores at charter schools and a look at the number of seats being returned to the District from charter schools rejoining the District. Additionally, she requested an informative about the design of the 450 N. Grand (Central Los Angeles Area New High School No. 9) project that includes an explanation of the tower's purpose, and an informative on the sustainable design progress.

Mr. Basalone:

€sources of funding for projects,
€joint use and the collection and use of developer fees,
€shared athletic facilities,
€environmental review of sites, and
€owner's authorized representatives and inspectors.

Mr. Mehula will provide a copy of the Strategic Execution Plan, New Construction to Mr. Basalone.

Mr. Folsom:

€state funding matches.

Mr. Folsom requested the guidelines for Phase II Measure K projects be presented to the Bond Oversight Committee and information regarding how FSD is predicting and accounting for pending mandatory kindergarten attendance legislation. Mr. Folsom read a statement regarding the progress and status of the building program and asked to see a proposed exit strategy and timeline to get the District off year-round multitrack calendars before going to the voters for another local bond.

Mr. Mehula will respond to these requests.

Mr. Tokofsky discussed and requested the following:

€that FSD create its own definition of school size capacity,
€be provided with a ranked list of student density at all primary and secondary schools,
€be provided with a list of all District-owned properties,
€be provided with a picture of facilities legislative agenda for the coming year,
€be provided with information regarding how prepared the District is to internally handle the enforcement and collection of developer fees,
€be provided with information describing the small business outreach efforts to architecture and engineering firms during Phase I and Phase II construction as well as small business participation requirements,
€be provided an organizational chart for the seven lawyers and outside lawyers who work with FSD,
€be provided an opinion of how the District complies with the Rodriguez Consent Decree including waivers provided, and
€that FSD actively pursue the issue of recovering past Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) funding.

The Committee asked for a presentation regarding the use of shared athletic facilities which includes opinions from school administrators and details regarding the additional costs and square footage needed to place athletic facilities at all high schools.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

There were no public comments.

3. Items Referred to the Facilities Committee by the Board of Education or Committee of the Whole

The Facilities Committee may consider and act upon motions, Board Reports, or other business referred to it by the Board of Education or Committee of the Whole, with respect to any properly posted matter at a meeting immediately preceding this committee meeting, where the time between that meeting and this committee meeting is less than 72 hours. Members of the public are encouraged to review the order of business or agenda for the meetings of the Board of Education or Committee of the Whole.