State Stem Cell Agency Facilities Working Group Transcript 12/1/06

This is an uncertified HTML copy of the transcript.  Click here for a certified PDF transcript.




California State Stem Cell Agency



REGULAR MEETING 12/1/06

BEFORE THE
SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL FACILITIES WORKING GROUP
OF THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE
ORGANIZED PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA STEM CELL RESEARCH AND CURES ACT
 
LOCATION:
210 KING STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA.
DATE:
DECEMBER 1, 2006
3 P.M.
REPORTER:
BETH C. DRAIN, CSR
CSR. NO. 7152
BRS FILE NO:
77156
SANTA ANA CALIFORNIA; FRIDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2006
04:45 P.M.
CHAIRMAN DOMS: LET'S GET STARTED. JAMES,SHALL WE TALK ABOUT THE SHARED RESEARCH LABS RFA? CAN WE TALK ABOUT THAT WITHOUT --
MR. HARRISON: YES, YOU CAN PROCEED. THAT'S JUST AN INFORMATION ITEM, SO YOU CAN BEGIN NOW.
CHAIRMAN DOMS: WITHOUT CALLING THE MEETING TO ORDER?
MR. HARRISON: I WOULD GO AHEAD AND CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. BY THE TIME, HOPEFULLY, SOMEONE ELSE JOINS US, WE'LL HAVE A QUORUM.
MR. KLEIN: THIS IS BOB KLEIN.
CHAIRMAN DOMS: GREAT, BOB. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MR. KLEIN: YOU'RE VERY WELCOME.
CHAIRMAN DOMS: WE HAVE EIGHT, SO WE'RE READY TO GO. AND I'D LIKE TO WELCOME AND THANK ALL OF YOU VERY MUCH.
MS. LANSING: I'M ON. THIS IS SHERRY LANSING. I'M ON.
CHAIRMAN DOMS: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US. WE NOW HAVE THE PROPER NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS, SO WE CAN GET STARTED. THANK YOU ALL FOR TAKING TIME OUT ON A BUSY FRIDAY AFTERNOON. I'M GOING TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. AND IS PAT THERE?
MS. BECKER: YES, I AM.
CHAIRMAN DOMS: YOU WANT TO READ THE ROLL, PLEASE?
MS. BECKER: MARCY FEIT. SHERRY LANSING. ARE YOU THERE, SHERRY? CAN PEOPLE HEAR ME?
MR. KLEIN: I CAN HEAR YOU. WHY DON'T YOU KEEP GOING. IF SHE DROPPED OFF, SHE'LL COME BACK ON.
MS. BECKER: JOAN SAMUELSON.
MS. SAMUELSON: JOAN SAMUELSON,PRESENT.
MS. BECKER: DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL.
MR. SERRANO-SEWELL: PRESENT.
MS. BECKER: JEFF SHEEHY.
MR. SHEEHY: PRESENT.
MS. BECKER: JANET WRIGHT.
DR. WRIGHT: YES. PRESENT.
MS. BECKER: ROBERT KLEIN.
MR. KLEIN: PRESENT.
MS. BECKER: RUSTY DOMS.
CHAIRMAN DOMS: PRESENT.
MS. BECKER: DEBORAH HYSEN.
MS. HYSEN: PRESENT.
MS. BECKER: EDWARD KASHIAN.
DAVID LICHTENGER.
MR. LICHTENGER: PRESENT.
MS. BECKER: THANK YOU.
CHAIRMAN DOMS: OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU. WE HAVE TWO ISSUES TO COVER THIS AFTERNOON. THE FIRST IS THE CLARIFICATION OF THE DEFINITION OF CAPITAL EQUIPMENT UNDER PROP 71. AND THE SECOND IS ISSUE IS AN UPDATE ON THE SHARED RESEARCH LABORATORIES. SHERRY, ARE YOU ON?
MS. LANSING: I'M SORRY. SOMETHING WENT WRONG WITH THE PHONE. THIS IS SHERRY LANSING, AND I AM HERE.
CHAIRMAN DOMS: THANK YOU, SHERRY.
MS. LANSING: I APOLOGIZE.
CHAIRMAN DOMS: LORI HOFFMAN, CIRM'S CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL OFFICER, WILL MAKE A PRESENTATION ON THE DEFINITION OF CAPITAL EQUIPMENT. AND ZACH WILL GIVE US AN UPDATE ON THE SCHEDULE OF THE SHARED RESEARCH LABORATORIES REQUEST FOR APPLICATION.
SO LET'S GET STARTED WITH AGENDA ITEM NO. 4, DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF DEFINITION OF THE CAPITAL EQUIPMENT UNDER PROP 71. THIS IS AN ACTION ITEM, SO WE NEED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THAT TODAY.
SO, LORI, IT'S ALL YOURS.
MS. HOFFMAN: THANK YOU, RUSTY. THE DEFINITION OF CAPITAL EQUIPMENT, I'D LIKE TO TURN TO THE ITEM, I HOPE EVERYONE HAS IT IN FRONT OF THEM, AND SPEAK TO THE BACKGROUND. IN PROPOSITION 71 UNDER THE SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES WORKING GROUP, WE REFERENCE THE FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT AND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR WHAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED REIMBURSABLE BUILDING COSTS, ETC.
SO THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE IS IN PROP 71, THE TERM "EQUIPMENT" OR "CAPITAL EQUIPMENT" ARE NOT DEFINED. THEREFORE, IT BECAME INCUMBENT UPON US PROVIDE YOU WITH A DEFINITION AND SEEK YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE ICOC.
UNDER THE RECOMMENDATION, WE'VE OUTLINED EXACTLY WHAT CAPITAL EQUIPMENT WOULD INCLUDE, WHICH IS A FIXED OR BUILT-IN PERMANENT EQUIPMENT, PIECE OF EQUIPMENT THAT IS ATTACHED TO A BUILDING OR A STRUCTURE. AND THEN WE LIST SEVERAL DIFFERENT EXAMPLES.
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE FUNDED THROUGH THE FACILITIES GRANTS PROGRAM. NOW, WE'VE ATTEMPTED TO THEN DEFINE WHAT WE WOULD CALL RESEARCH EQUIPMENT, BUT RESEARCH EQUIPMENT, NO PLACE IS IT CITED, THAT TERM, CITED IN PROP 71. SO THE NEED FOR THE DEFINITION IS ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO MAKING THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CAPITAL EQUIPMENT.
RESEARCH EQUIPMENT OR INSTRUMENTATION IS SOMETHING THAT IS MOVABLE AND IS REQUIRED TO MEET THE PROGRAM NEEDS OF THE RESEARCH GRANT. BUT ALSO INCLUDE EQUIPMENT THAT IS OVER THE $5,000 LIMIT. AND WE OFFER EXAMPLES AS WELL. THE RESEARCH EQUIPMENT SHALL BE FUNDED THROUGH THE RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM.
SIMPLY, WE'RE ASKING FOR YOUR CONCURRENCE AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE ICOC. CAN I TAKE ANY QUESTIONS?
MR. KLEIN: LORI, THIS IS BOB KLEIN. I WOULD REMIND THE BOARD THAT AT UCLA A MONTH AND A HALF AGO I WENT THROUGH A DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD ON CAPITAL EQUIPMENT WITHIN THE BUILDING DEFINITION BECAUSE WE WERE DISCUSSING MAJOR FACILITIES BEING, IN FACT, THE TYPE OF EQUIPMENT THAT WAS CONSIDERED A FIXTURE OR A BUILT-IN EQUIPMENT LIKE MAJOR AIR EQUIPMENT TO DO THE AIR TURNS FOR A GMP FACILITY OR OTHER MAJOR BUILT-INS THAT ARE PART OF THE STRUCTURE. WHEREAS, A RESEARCH EQUIPMENT WOULD BE FUNDED THROUGH RESEARCH GRANTS, LIKE A HIGH-SPEED CELL SORTER.
AND DAVID BALTIMORE AND A NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF THE BOARD PARTICIPATED IN THAT DISCUSSION. AND THIS IS, IN FACT, JUST CODIFYING WHAT WE'VE ALWAYS HAD AS AN OPERATING UNDERSTANDING OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO TYPES OF EQUIPMENT AS MOST RECENTLY DISCUSSED AT THAT BOARD MEETING WHERE THERE WAS COMPLETE CONCURRENCE IN THE SEPARATION OF THESE TWO CLASSES OF EQUIPMENT.BECAUSE CERTAINLY EIGHT YEARS LATER AFTER ALL OF THE FACILITIES ARE BUILT, WHEN A RESEARCHER COMES IN FOR A FACS MACHINE, HIGH SPEED CELL SORTER, THEY'RE GOING TO NEED THAT EQUIPMENT, WHICH IS RESEARCH EQUIPMENT, FUNDED. AND WE JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT OUR PROGRAM CONTEMPLATES THAT AND UNDERSTANDS THE NEED FOR RESEARCH GRANTS TO FUND MOVABLE EQUIPMENT, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. IS THAT CORRECT, LORI?
MS. HOFFMAN: YES, BOB. AND ALSO IN ATTACHMENT 1, THAT CERTAINLY DOES SUPPORT YOUR UNDERSTANDING AT UCLA, THAT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA'S FACILITIES MANUAL IS CITED AS WELL AS THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL, THE STANDARDS SET BY STANFORD AND CALTECH AS WELL AS THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES.
MR. KLEIN: WE'RE OVERWHELMED BY DOCUMENTATION.
MS. HOFFMAN: YES, WE ARE.
DR. HALL: I MIGHT JUST ADD A WORD, THAT THIS BOTH -- THIS VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THIS ESSENTIAL DEFINITION GIVES MORE MONEY FOR FACILITIES, INCLUDING THE FIXED EQUIPMENT, AND IT ALSO GIVES US MORE FLEXIBILITY, AS BOB INDICATED, IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO FUND MOVABLE EQUIPMENT, WHICH WILL BE IN AND OUT OF THESE FACILITIES. AND WE WILL WANT TO HAVE FLEXIBILITY TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT WHEN WE NEED IT. SO I THINK IT'S VERY APPROPRIATE THAT WE USE THIS DESCRIPTION, AS DOES THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.
CHAIRMAN DOMS: I THINK EVERYBODY ON THE WORKING GROUP KNOWS THAT UNDER PROP 71 WE'RE LIMITED TO 10 PERCENT OF $3 BILLION. ONLY 10 PERCENT CAN GO FOR FACILITIES, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE'RE TAKING A CLOSE LOOK AT THIS TO TRY TO STRETCH THAT MONEY AS PRODUCTIVELY AS WE CAN.
SO ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?
MS. SAMUELSON: ARE THERE ANY OTHER MAJOR RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS OR ANYONE ELSE OF IMPORTANCE THAT TAKES A DIFFERENT VIEW OF IT? JUST FYI.
MS. HOFFMAN: I KNOW OF NO OTHERS. AGAIN, CERTAINLY, WITH THE LIST OF INSTITUTES THAT WE DID LOOK AT FROM A NATIONAL, STATE, AND THEN THE UNIVERSITIES,AT LEAST THE LARGER PRIVATES AND THE ENTIRE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SYSTEM AS A RESEARCH INSTITUTION TAKES THIS PARTICULAR VIEW.
MR. LICHTENGER: THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT I'VE SEEN OVER THE YEARS AS WELL.
MS. SAMUELSON: THANKS.
MS. HYSEN: IT VERY CLOSELY MODELS THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL, SO THAT'S IMPORTANT, I THINK.
CHAIRMAN DOMS: JAMES, IT'S RUSTY. YOU'VE REVIEWED THIS AND YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH IT?
MR. HARRISON: YES, I AM.
MR. KLEIN: IF THERE'S NO EXTENDED DISCUSSION OVER THIS ITEM, SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE IN HEATED AGREEMENT, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF STAFF.
CHAIRMAN DOMS: IS THERE A SECOND?
MR. LICHTENGER: I SECOND IT.
DR. HALL: PUBLIC COMMENT? WE DO HAVE A REQUEST FOR PUBLIC COMMENT HERE.
CHAIRMAN DOMS: THAT WAS MY NEXT.
DR. HALL: WHENEVER YOU'RE READY FOR IT.
CHAIRMAN DOMS: ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS.
MR. FEYER: THIS IS ROBERT FEYER FROM ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, AS I WAS INTRODUCED EARLIER. WE ACT AS BOND COUNSEL TO THE STATE. AND I NOTED THIS AGENDA ITEM. SINCE OBVIOUSLY THE FUNDING OF CAPITAL EQUIPMENT BEING PART OF THE BOND PROGRAM IS SOMETHING THAT WE AS BOND COUNSEL WANTED TO BE AWARE OF. LORI WAS GOOD ENOUGH TO SHARE THE MEMO WITH ME BEFOREHAND.
AS I TOLD LORI AND JAMES HARRISON IN E-MAIL YESTERDAY, I'M COMFORTABLE AS WELL WITH THE DEFINITION. THIS SEEMS TO WORK PROPERLY AS THE STATUTE IS WRITTEN.
NORMALLY WHEN WE DEAL WITH THE CONCEPT OF CAPITAL ASSETS FOR BOND FINANCING, ONE OF THE CRITERIA IN DETERMINING CAPITAL ASSETS IS ITS USEFUL LIFE. AND I JUST WANTED TO ASK THE QUESTION OF YOU EXPERTS HERE AS TO WHETHER ANYONE THINKS IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE TO INCLUDE IN THIS DEFINITION OF CAPITAL EQUIPMENT SOME MINIMUM USEFUL LIFE TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT'S INTENDED TO BE VERY LONG-LIVEED EQUIPMENT. I'M THINKING SOMETHING LIKE FIVE TO TEN YEARS AS A MINIMUM LIFE OF THIS EQUIPMENT. AT THE SAME TIME I DON'T THINK IT'S ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY THAT THIS BE DONE, BUT IT --
MR. KLEIN: I THINK THAT COULD BE, IN FACT, CONFUSING BECAUSE OF THE CAPITAL EQUIPMENT HAVING THE LONG LIFE, BUT I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO GET INTO YEARS BECAUSE THERE'S DIFFERENT TERMS OF UTILITY FOR BOTH KINDS OF EQUIPMENT. OBVIOUSLY THE CAPITAL EQUIPMENT THAT'S A FIXTURE IN A BUILDING MAY, IN FACT, HAVE A 15- OR 25-YEAR LIFE.
MR. FEYER: YES.
MR. KLEIN: WHICH IS VERY MUCH CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOUR THINKING IS. BUT I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD GET INTO THAT AREA IN THAT THIS DISTINCTION, I THINK, WILL BE VERY EFFECTIVE IN THE REAL ESTATE AREA, AND WE CAN DO IT WITHOUT USEFUL LIFE.
MR. LICHTENGER: I WOULD AGREE WITH BOB ON THAT. I THINK THAT WOULD JUST CONFUSE THE ISSUE. I THINK THE DEFINITION IS VERY CLEAR, YOU KNOW, THAT IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS PERMANENTLY ATTACHED TO THE FACILITY, YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, THERE MAY BE OTHER TYPES OF EQUIPMENT THAT MIGHT HAVE SEVEN TO TEN YEARS VERSUS 15 TO 25 YEARS. SO I THINK IT WOULD JUST CONFUSE MATTERS.
MR. FEYER: OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO GET A FEEL FOR THAT.
MR. KLEIN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE APPRECIATE YOUR FOCUS ON THAT.
CHAIRMAN DOMS: ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC? THEN I CALL FOR THE --
MR. LICHTENGER: I'D ALSO LIKE TO ASK JAMES WHAT PROCEDURALLY IS GOING TO HAPPEN. I TAKE IT YOU'RE TAKING THIS TO THE BOARD AT ITS NEXT FULL ICOC MEETING, BUT IS THIS -- ULTIMATELY I UNDERSTAND, JAMES, THIS IS GOING TO BE INCORPORATED IN REGULATIONS FOR FACILITIES GRANTS, RIGHT? THOSE ARE NOT YET PREPARED.
DR. HALL: WE'LL HAVE A GRANTS ADMINISTRATION POLICY FOR FACILITIES, AND THIS WILL BE PART OF THAT.
MR. LICHTENGER: SO THERE WILL STILL BE A FURTHER OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE WORDING.
CHAIRMAN DOMS: ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED?
MR. KLEIN: NO OPPOSED. BUT, JAMES, DO YOU NEED A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THIS ON A PHONE?
MR. HARRISON: RUSTY, I THINK IT'S BEST PRACTICE, WHEN WE HAVE TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS, TO USE THE ROLL CALL VOTE METHOD SO WE CAN CORRECTLY TRACK WHO VOTED IN FAVOR AND WHO VOTED AGAINST.
CHAIRMAN DOMS: PAT, DO YOU WANT TO CALL THE ROLL?
MS. BECKER: MARCY FEIT. SHERRY LANSING.
MS. LANSING: YES.
MS. BECKER: JOAN SAMUELSON.
MS. SAMUELSON: AYE.
MS. BECKER: DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL.
MR. SERRANO-SEWELL: YES.
MS. BECKER: JEFF SHEEHY.
MR. SHEEHY: YES.
MS. BECKER: JANET WRIGHT.
DR. WRIGHT: YES.
MS. BECKER: ROBERT KLEIN.
MR. KLEIN: YES.
MS. BECKER: RUSTY DOMS.
CHAIRMAN DOMS: YES.
MS. BECKER: DEBORAH HYSEN.
MS. HYSEN: YES.
MS. BECKER: ED KASHIAN. DAVID LICHTENGER.
MR. LICHTENGER: YES.
MS. BECKER: THANK YOU.
CHAIRMAN DOMS: THE MOTION PASSES.
MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NO. 5, WHICH IS THE STATUS OF THE SHARED MEDICAL RESEARCH LABS RFA. AND ZACH.
DR. HALL: YES. LET ME JUST GIVE YOU A QUICK UPDATE ON THAT. LET ME MENTION ANOTHER INFORMATION ITEM FIRST, AND THAT IS THAT WE ARE PREPARED TO MAKE A JOB OFFER CONTINGENT ON SOME BOARD ACTION FOR THE SENIOR LIAISON OFFICER FOR THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. AND WE HAVE, WE THINK, A VERY HIGHLY QUALIFIED AND TALENTED PERSON IN THE WINGS. AND OUR HOPE IS THAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO MAKE A FORMAL JOB OFFER AFTER THE MEETING NEXT WEEK, AND THAT WE WILL THEN BE ABLE TO MOVE VERY QUICKLY AND GET THAT PERSON ON BOARD. I THINK WILL STRENGTHEN OUR FACILITIES TEAM HERE AT CIRM VERY MUCH. WITH THE ADDITION OF LORI HOFFMAN, OF COURSE, HER EXPERIENCE IN THIS AREA IS TERRIFIC. WITH THIS OTHER PERSON AND THEN PAT BECKER HAS BEEN SERVING AS STAFF TO THE COMMITTEE, TO THE WORKING GROUP. SO I THINK WE WILL SORT OF OVER THE LAST COUPLE MONTHS, IF THAT'S SUCCESSFUL, WE WILL INCREASED OUR INTERNAL EXPERTISE IN THIS MATTER BY PROBABLY A THOUSAND PERCENT.
AT ANY RATE WE HAVE BEEN, AS YOU KNOW, VERY EAGER TO GET OUT THE SHARED RESEARCH FACILITY RFA.MANY OF THE SEED GRANTS THAT WE LOOKED AT YESTERDAY WILL BE DEPENDENT ON THIS SPACE IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT THE WORK. AND SO WE WANT TO GET IT UNDERWAY AND GET IT MOVING AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
WE HAVE, HOWEVER, HAD A TREMENDOUS STAFF BURDEN HERE WITH 232 APPLICATIONS THAT WE REVIEWED THIS WEEK. WE HAVE ANOTHER 70 COMING UP IN JANUARY. SO EVERYBODY HERE IS OPERATING PRETTY MUCH ON FUMES AS THIS IS A NEW RFA FOR US, THAT IS, A FACILITIES ONE, THAT HAS INTRODUCED A NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT WE WEREN'T SO FAMILIAR WITH. IT'S TAKEN US A LITTLE TIME TO DO IT. WE HAVE ALSO FOUND OUT THAT THE INSTITUTIONS REQUIRE A LITTLE BIT LONGER LEAD-TIME IN ORDER TO PREPARE THE KIND OF PLANS FOR THE RENOVATION PART OF THIS THAT YOU WILL NEED TO MAKE YOUR EVALUATION.
SO WE'VE HAD TO REVISE OUR SCHEDULE. AND WHAT I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU IS A TENTATIVE ONE. AND WHAT I'D ACTUALLY LIKE TO DO IS TO WORK BACKWARDS. WE NOW HOPE TO BRING THIS TO THE ICOC MEETING IN JUNE FOR APPROVAL. AND WE IN APRIL AND MAY HOPE TO HAVE BOTH A GRANTS REVIEW WORKING GROUP MEETING AND A FACILITIES REVIEW WORKING GROUP MEETING TO CONSIDER THE TWO PARTS OF THE RFA. I'LL COME BACK TO THAT IN JUST A MOMENT.
WE'LL BE CONTACTING YOU SHORTLY, IF NOT ALREADY, ABOUT AVAILABLE TIMES IN APRIL AND MAY IN ORDER TO SCHEDULE THAT. THE APPLICATIONS WILL BE DUE IN MARCH, AND OUR HOPE IS TO GET THE RFA OUT BY EARLY JANUARY AT THE LATEST. WE'RE GOING TO WORK VERY HARD ON THAT. WE'VE BEEN DIVERTED FROM IT WITH THIS RECENT THING.
LET ME JUST REMIND YOU OF THE PRINCIPLES OF THIS. THE IDEA IS TO AWARD GRANTS AT 15 INSTITUTIONS THAT WOULD CREATE DEDICATED LABORATORY SPACE FOR THE CULTURE AND MAINTENANCE OF HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS, INCLUDING THOSE OUTSIDE THE FEDERAL GUIDELINES. AND WE WOULD CREATE CORE LABORATORIES THAT WOULD BE SHARED BY A VARIETY OF INVESTIGATORS AT EACH INSTITUTION; THEREFORE, WE CALL THESE SHARED RESEARCH LABORATORIES, AND ALSO WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO INVESTIGATORS FROM OTHER INSTITUTIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT MIGHT NOT HAVE SUCH FACILITIES AND WOULD WISH TO USE THEM.
AND THEN FOR FIVE OF THOSE, WE WILL PROVIDE EXTRA FUNDS AND ASK THEM TO GIVE A COURSE SEVERAL TIMES A YEAR IN HOW TO CULTURE HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS. THESE ARE NOT EASY CELLS TO CULTURE; WHEREAS, IT DOESN'T TAKE A LONG COURSE, COURSE OF A WEEK OR SO, IT'S EXTREMELY HELPFUL IN GETTING A LAB STARTED IN THIS AREA. SO WE HEARD FROM SCIENTISTS AT OUR TRAINING GRANTS MEETING THAT THESE WERE VERY REAL NEEDS, AND WE TRIED TO MEET THOSE.
THE STRUCTURE OF IT IS THAT WE WILL BASICALLY OFFER UP TO A MILLION DOLLARS FOR RENOVATION, ANOTHER MILLION DOLLARS FOR INSTRUMENTATION COSTS, AND WE WILL ALSO OFFER UP TO $200,000 A YEAR FOR PERSONNEL AND SUPPLIES TO COVER THEIR OPERATING COSTS. IF THEY WISH TO APPLY FOR A TRAINING PROGRAM, THEN WE WILL GIVE THEM AN ADDITIONAL $500 FOR SPACE DEVELOPMENT, RENOVATION, AND EQUIPMENT, AND AN ADDITIONAL $200,000 A YEAR FOR OPERATING FUNDS TO SUPPORT THIS INSTRUCTIONAL COMPONENT.
SO THE ENTIRE GRANTS WILL BE WORTH $2 MILLION FOR A SHARED LABORATORY OR TWO AND A HALF FOR A SHARED LABORATORY PROVIDING TRAINING COURSES. AND THE TOTAL COST OF THIS OVER A THREE-YEAR PERIOD WILL BE 47 AND A HALF MILLION.
NOW, IT WILL REVIEWED BY BOTH GRANTS AND FACILITIES WORKING GROUP, AS YOU KNOW, AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S MADE THIS A LITTLE DIFFICULT IS WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A TWO-PART APPLICATION WITH A LOT OF INFORMATION GIVEN IN COMMON. BUT ONE PART IS TAILORED FOR THE GRANTS REVIEW WORKING GROUP, THE OTHER PART TAILORED FOR THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. FOR EXAMPLE, THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP, THERE ARE GOING TO BE THREE MAJOR SECTIONS. THEY WILL RECEIVE TWO OF THESE. ONE SCIENTIFIC NEED AND RESEARCH USE; THAT IS,HOW MUCH SPACE DO YOU PLAN TO DEVELOP, AND WHO WILL USE IT, AND WHAT KINDS OF SCIENCE WILL BE DONE THERE? THAT IS, IS THERE A SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SIZE AND SCOPE OF THE SPACE THAT YOU WISH TO DEVELOP?
THE SECOND IS A QUESTION TO EVALUATE LABORATORY EQUIPMENT AND MANAGEMENT. THAT IS, WHAT KINDS OF EQUIPMENT WILL THEY BUY? IS THIS JUSTIFIED IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THERE AND OTHER EQUIPMENT THAT'S AVAILABLE ON THE CAMPUS? HOW WILL IT BE MANAGED? WHAT WILL THE SCIENTIFIC OVERSIGHT BE FOR THE LABORATORY? HOW WILL THEY DECIDE WHO GETS TO USE IT? AND WHAT KIND OF PEOPLE WILL THEY HIRE TO RUN IT? SO WE WILL ASK FOR ALL THOSE ISSUES, AND THOSE TWO WILL GO TO THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP.
AND THEN THE THIRD IS THE DETAILS OF THE RENOVATION, LABORATORY RENOVATION, PLAN, WHICH INCLUDES PLANS, DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT SPACE AND HOW IT WILL BE RENOVATED AND RECONFIGURED. WE'RE ASKING FOR 11 BY 14 OF THE CURRENT FLOOR PLAN SPACE AND ONE 11 BY 14 OF PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN SPACE AFTER RENOVATION. WE ASK THEM TO DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT WILL BE MANAGED AND TRACKED, INCLUDING PROJECT MANAGER, CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISOR ASSIGNED TO THE PROJECT, HOW CHANGES ORDERS WILL BE HANDLED. IF THEY'RE IN LEASED SPACE, WE WANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE INSTITUTION'S LONG-TERM ACCESS TO THAT. AND THEN WE ASK THEM TO GIVE US PLANS AND A SCHEDULE FOR ALL PHASES OF DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT LEADING TO A FUNCTIONAL LABORATORY, A PROPOSED DATE OF OCCUPANCY, AND CONTINGENCY PLAN IN CASE OF COST OVERRUNS. AND FINALLY, WE'LL ASK THEM FOR A REALISTIC TIMELINE FOR COMPLETING EACH PROPOSED SPECIFIC AIM OF THE PROJECT, AND THEN A BUDGET FOR THIS.
AND IN THE BUDGET WE ASK FOR COST FOR CONSTRUCTION COSTS, A&E FEES, ADMINISTRATION, GROUP 2 AND 3 EQUIPMENT, COST OF INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT, AND CONTINGENCY, WHICH IS LIMITED TO 7 TO 10 PERCENT OF THE CONSTRUCTION BUDGET. THERE'S ALSO A RESTRICTION IN HERE THAT NOT MORE THAN 15 PERCENT OF THE MONEY CAN BE USED FOR PLAN DEVELOPMENT.
AND THEN OUR CURRENT PLAN IS THAT, CONSISTENT WITH PROPOSITION 71, THERE WILL BE A REQUIREMENT FOR 20 PERCENT MATCHING FUNDS FOR THE RENOVATION AND EQUIPMENT.
SO THAT'S THE GENERAL OUTLINE OF IT. WE ARE STILL PUTTING PIECES OF IT TOGETHER, AND WE HOPE TO HAVE THIS DONE WITHIN A MATTER OF WEEKS. AND WE'LL SEND YOU A COPY AS SOON AS IT'S READY.
SO LET ME ASK IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS, ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE WORKING GROUP ABOUT THAT, AND THEN WE HAVE ONE QUESTION FROM CIRM STAFF HERE AFTER THAT, AFTER QUESTIONS FROM THE WORKING GROUP.
MR. KLEIN: ZACH, THIS IS BOB. FIRST OF ALL, WE SHOULD PROBABLY TELL THOSE MEMBERS ON THE CALL THAT ARE NOT AWARE THAT WE CLOSED 181 MILLION YESTERDAY. THE MONEY IS IN THE BANK, WHICH IS A GREAT STEP FORWARD. THAT'S THE BALANCE OF THE 45 MILLION IN BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES PLUS THE GOVERNOR'S LOAN OF A $150 MILLION.
IN THAT CONTEXT, THE GOVERNOR'S LOAN COMES WITH A RESTRICTION THAT THERE'S A LIMIT ON WHAT WE CAN SPEND ON STRUCTURES FOR FACILITIES AS VERSUS RESEARCH. AND MY UNDERSTANDING, LORI, IS THAT THE ALLOCATION OF THE BUDGET THAT YOU'VE DRAWN UP FOR THE SHARED LAB PROGRAM ALLOWS US TO OPERATE WITHIN THESE RESTRICTIONS THAT THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET CREATED, WHICH WANTED TO EMPHASIZE RESEARCH OVER FACILITIES.
MS. HOFFMAN: THAT'S CORRECT, BOB, THAT THE LIMIT IS, I BELIEVE, 19 MILLION. AND UNDER THIS RFA, WITH THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE DEFINITION OF CAPITAL EQUIPMENT, WE WOULD NOT BE EXPENDING MORE THAN $17.5 MILLION FOR THE FACILITIES PIECE OF THIS GRANT.
MR. KLEIN: RIGHT. SO I THINK WE'RE IN A POSITION TO FUND THIS GRANT AND IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE GOVERNOR'S PRIORITY FOR RESEARCH. AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT.
DR. HALL: GREAT. THANK YOU, BOB. I'M ALSO GLAD YOU MENTIONED THAT. IN THAT SENSE YESTERDAY WAS AN ABSOLUTELY STELLAR DAY FOR CIRM. WE FINISHED OUR FIRST RESEARCH GRANTS REVIEW, AND JUST IN THE NICK OF TIME, WE HAVE MONEY COMING INTO OUR COFFERS. SO IT REALLY WAS A WONDERFUL DAY.
MR. LICHTENGER: ZACH, STEVE LICHTENGER. I HAVE A QUESTION AS WELL. SO I WASN'T AT THE LAST MEETING, AND I JUST WAS CURIOUS ABOUT HOW YOU CAME UP WITH THOSE DOLLAR AMOUNTS AND KIND OF WHAT SIZE FACILITIES WERE ANTICIPATED THAT WOULD BE FUNDED. I'M JUST CURIOUS HOW YOU ARRIVED AT THOSE NUMBERS.
DR. HALL: WELL, WE ESTIMATE THAT -- NOTICE IT'S UP TO, THE NUMBERS ARE UP TO. AND THE SPACE WILL HAVE TO BE JUSTIFIED ON THE BASIS OF THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE, AND THEN THE DOLLARS WILL THEN HAVE TO BE LINKED TO THAT. AND THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT YOU WILL WANT TO LOOK AT VERY CAREFULLY. BUT OUR ESTIMATE IS THAT FOR THAT MILLION DOLLARS WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET SOMETHING ON THE ORDER OF A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OR A BIT MORE. RENOVATION OF SPACE, LABORATORY SPACE, IS INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE RIGHT NOW, AND IT'S ALMOST CHEAPER TO BUILD NEW SPACE, BUT THE PROBLEM IS YOU CAN'T CUT SPACE IN THE MUDDLE OF AN ONGOING RESEARCH BUILDING.YOU CAN'T DO JUST TEAR IT DOWN AND START OVER FOR THAT LITTLE BIT OF SPACE.
SO OUR ESTIMATE IS ONE TO 2,000 SQUARE FEET WHAT WE'LL GET FOR THAT. IN SOME CASES INSTITUTIONS WILL BE ADDING THIS TO SPACE THEY ALREADY HAVE THAT IS EXPANDING SPACE THAT THEY HAVE COMMITTED TO. AND SO THAT WAS THE GENERAL ESTIMATE IN TERMS OF THE SPACE. AND I THINK OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH PEOPLE INDICATE THAT FOR MOST PLACES, FOR THE REALLY BIG PLACES, THAT WON'T BE, OF COURSE, ENOUGH, BUT FOR MOST PLACES THAT WOULD BE WILL BE ENOUGH TO LET THOSE WHO DON'T HAVE DEDICATED FACILITIES GO AHEAD AND USE THEM.
AND THE EQUIPMENT IS ALSO BASED ON THE SORT OF GUESSTIMATE OF WHAT WILL BE REQUIRED. AND THAT IS INCUBATORS, HOODS, CULTURE HOODS, FREEZERS, AND MICROSCOPES IS A BIG ISSUE. AND SO ACTUALLY THIS WILL BE A VERY MINIMAL EQUIPMENT LIST FOR THESE KINDS OF EXPERIMENTS. IF YOU REALLY WANTED TO HAVE AN UP-TO-DATE SORT OF LAB THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE COULD USE, IT WOULD COST SOME MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, BUT WE THOUGHT THIS WOULD PROVIDE THE BASIS. AND THEN UNIVERSITIES OR PEOPLE WORKING IN THIS AREA COULD CONTRIBUTE OTHER EQUIPMENT AS NEEDED.
MR. LICHTENGER: I UNDERSTAND THE THOUGHT PROCESS. THANK YOU.
CHAIRMAN DOMS: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ZACH AND HIS STAFF? ZACH, WHEN DO YOU, IN TERMS OF THE RFA, I THINK WE'D ALL LIKE TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT BEFORE IT GOES OUT, WHEN DO YOU HAVE --
DR. HALL: LET ME ASK -- I'D BE HAPPY TO -- LET ME ASK THAT WE NOT DO THAT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON. THIS IS A VERY COMPLICATED ONE, AND IT GOES TO THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP AND TO THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. WE HAVE NOT, IN GENERAL -- WE ARE PLEASED TO HAVE YOUR CONCEPT CLEARANCE ON THIS, WHICH IS WHY I WENT THROUGH IT IN SOME DETAIL, BUT IF WE HAVE TO GET YOUR CLEARANCE ON THE WORDING FROM ALL THE MEMBERS AND ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE GRANTS GROUP, THIS IS A PROCESS THAT WILL BE QUITE DIFFICULT FOR US TO MANAGE.
I THINK WE'D BE HAPPY TO SHARE OUR THOUGHTS WITH YOU AND DAVID AS WE MOVE THIS ALONG, BUT I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO GET IT OUT, WE SIMPLY CAN'T -- THAT WILL BE JUST TOO CUMBERSOME A PROCESS. THE GRANTS GROUP HAS 22 MEMBERS; AND ALTHOUGH THERE IS SOME OVERLAP FROM THE PATIENT ADVOCATES, IT'S QUITE A LARGE GROUP OF PEOPLE IN THE END. BUT WE'RE NOW TALKING 30 PEOPLE OR MORE, MAYBE NOT QUITE THAT MANY, BUT SOMETHING ON THE ORDER OF 25 PEOPLE. SO I WOULD REQUEST THAT WE NOT. AS I SAY, I'M HAPPY TO WALK YOU THROUGH THE CONCEPT. I'LL TELL YOU -- ANY QUESTION YOU WANT, I'LL BE HAPPY TO GIVE YOU INFORMATION ABOUT, BUT I'D RATHER NOT HAVE TO GET APPROVAL FOR THE WORDING.
MS. SAMUELSON: I WASN'T AT THE LAST MEETING, SO I APOLOGIZE. AND IF THE WORKING GROUP HAS BEEN THROUGH THIS, THEN CERTAINLY WE DON'T DO IT FOR ME. BUT I WAS THINKING, ZACH, AS YOU WERE TALKING EARLIER, THAT I WISHED I HAD SOME PAPER. AND I WASN'T AWARE OF ANY I HAD RECEIVED BEFORE. AND IT SEEMS TO ME, AS WE EMBARK ON THIS, IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE CONCEPT CLEARANCE OR WHATEVER THE POLICY DECISIONS ARE THAT ARE UNDERLYING THE RFA UNLESS IT'S BEEN DONE AND I'M JUST FORGETTING OR SOMETHING.
DR. HALL: THE ICOC GAVE CONCEPT CLEARANCE FOR TO RFA AT THE AUGUST MEETING. AUGUST MEETING, YES. AND WE WALKED THROUGH THE DOLLARS AMOUNTS, WE WALKED THROUGH THE NUMBER OF GRANTS, WE WALKED THROUGH THE PURPOSE OF IT. WHAT WE'VE DONE SINCE THEN, JOAN, IS TO WORK WITH THE ISSUE, THE REALLY MECHANICAL ISSUE OF HOW TO GET TWO REVIEWS FROM THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP AND THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP, AND WE MADE THIS DECISION TO DIVIDE IT UP INTO TWO APPLICATIONS. THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT COMPLICATED FOR US. AND THEN WE HAVE TO WORK HERE WITH OUR COMPUTER SYSTEM SO THAT WE CAN EASILY SPLIT THE APPLICATIONS AND MANAGE THEM IN THAT WAY.
BUT WE DO HAVE CONCEPT CLEARANCE APPROVAL FROM THE ICOC. IT WAS DISCUSSED IN AUGUST.
MR. KLEIN: ZACH, WHEN DO YOU THINK YOU'LL HAVE THE DRAFT OF THE RFA AVAILABLE.
DR. HALL: I HAVE A DRAFT RIGHT NOW, BOB, BUT IT'S NOT COMPLETE, AND WE STILL HAVE SOME ISSUES OUTSTANDING ON IT.
MR. KLEIN: WHEN WERE YOU GOING TO INTEND TO SEND IT OUT?
DR. HALL: WE HOPE TO GET IT OUT EITHER THIS MONTH OR EARLY IN JANUARY.
MR. KLEIN: OKAY. WELL, I WOULD THINK THAT RUSTY AND DAVID, AS THE CO-CHAIRS, COULD TURN TO DAVID ON THE COMMITTEE WHO HAS A LOT OF TECHNICAL EXPERIENCE AND SOME OF THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE WITH A LOT OF TECHNICAL EXPERIENCE AND SHOW THEM THOSE SECTIONS THAT THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO ADD SOMETHING QUICKLY SO THAT I DON'T THINK IT WOULD HOLD YOU UP, BUT IT'S INTENDED THAT THE COMMITTEE'S EXPERTISE BE A BENEFIT TO YOU IN MOVING THIS FORWARD WITH MORE RELIABILITY.
DR. HALL: WE'D BE HAPPY TO DO THAT.
CHAIRMAN DOMS: ZACH, ME MAKE A SUGGESTION. YOU AND LORI AND DAVID AND I CAN DISCUSS THIS FURTHER AND COME UP WITH A PROGRAM THAT ALLOWS FURTHER EXPLORATION OF THIS WITHOUT AN OVERALL REVIEW OF THE RFA.
DR. HALL: YES. WE CERTAINLY WOULD, I THINK, BE HAPPY TO CONSULT WITH YOU AND DAVID AND INSOFAR AS YOU WANTED TO BRING IN OTHERS, THAT WOULD BE FINE, BUT, AS I SAY, NOT JUST TO HAVE IT GO OUT.
CHAIRMAN DOMS: I AGREE. IS THE COMMITTEE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT PROCESS?
MS. SAMUELSON: YES.
MR. LICHTENGER: MAKES SENSE TO ME, RUSTY.
MS. HYSEN: I'M JUST HOPEFUL THAT YOUR REAL ESTATE EXPERTISE IS ON BOARD TO GIVE YOU SOME ASSISTANCE, IF THAT'S AT ALL POSSIBLE.
DR. HALL: YES. WE WOULD LOVE THAT ACTUALLY. THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS -- AS WE'VE GOTTEN CLOSE, IT'S COMPLICATED, I WILL JUST SAY THIS, BECAUSE IT IS SOMEBODY AT A CALIFORNIA INSTITUTION. SO WE CANNOT CONSULT WITH THEM UNTIL THEY'RE ON BOARD, AND WE WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO HAVE THEM GO OVER THIS WITH US. AND SO THAT IS EXACTLY ONE OF THE REASONS WE HAVE SORT OF TURNED OUR ATTENTION FROM THIS FOR THE MOMENT, AND WE WILL REV IT UP HERE IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS TO TRY TO GET IT OUT.
CHAIRMAN DOMS: LET ME JUST SAY THAT LORI BRINGS CONSIDERABLE REAL ESTATE EXPERTISE TO THIS. SO I THINK WE HAVE SOMEBODY WHO REALLY UNDERSTANDS THE PROCESS FROM A REAL ESTATE STANDPOINT ON BOARD RIGHT NOW. WE'RE ADDING TO THAT, BUT I THINK LORI IS VERY, VERY CAPABLE IN THAT AREA.
DR. HALL: DO THE MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP, MAYBE WE SHOULD SAY A WORD ABOUT HER BACKGROUND, WHICH I'M NOT SURE THE MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP ARE FAMILIAR WITH.
CHAIRMAN DOMS: WHY DON'T YOU TAKE A SECOND AND DO THAT, IF YOU COULD, ZACH.
DR. HALL: ARE YOU WILLING, LORI, JUST TO SAY FOR A MOMENT WHAT YOUR EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN IN THIS AREA?
MS. HOFFMAN: CERTAINLY. THANK YOU. MOST RECENTLY I WORKED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AS THE DEPUTY SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR BUSINESS AND FINANCE, AS WELL AS THE DIRECTOR OF NON-STATE CAPITAL PROGRAMS. NON-STATE CAPITAL PROGRAMS THAT THE UNIVERSITY DENOTES THOSE FUNDS THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO HOSPITALS, AUXILIARIES, HOUSING SPECIFICALLY.
PRIOR TO THAT I WAS A SENIOR FELLOW AT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HAVE SPENT ALMOST A DECADE IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. AT THE SAME TIME, WHILE WORKING FOR A NONPROFIT HOUSING DEVELOPER, I TAUGHT AT THE CAL POLY SAN LUIS OBISPO IN THE CITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AS WELL AS CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT. PRIOR TO THAT, MOST OF MY BACKGROUND WAS IN FINANCE, AND I HAD A FEW YEARS ON WALL STREET. SO I THINK THAT'S IT.
DR. HALL: SO THANKS, RUSTY. AND I'M GLAD WE HAD A CHANCE TO ACQUAINT THE WORKING GROUP MEMBERS WITH LORI'S BACKGROUND. I THINK WE'RE INCREDIBLY FORTUNATE TO HAVE HER WITH US. AND SO WE LOOK FORWARD AND HAVE ALREADY BEGUN TO ENJOY HER GUIDANCE AND LEADERSHIP IN THIS AREA.
CHAIRMAN DOMS: I CAN SAY THAT I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK A LITTLE BIT WITH LORI SINCE SHE'S COME ON BOARD, AND I SHARE ZACH'S FEELINGS ON LORI.
MS. HOFFMAN: THANK YOU BOTH.
CHAIRMAN DOMS: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON SHARED MEDICAL RESEARCH LABORATORIES RFA? I'D LIKE TO ASK ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE COMMENTS REGARDING THE SHARED MEDICAL RESEARCH LABORATORIES RFA? HEARING NONE, I ASSUME THERE ARE NONE. AT THIS POINT, UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER BUSINESS.
MR. KLEIN: RUSTY, THIS IS BOB KLEIN. I'D LIKE TO, AGAIN, RAISE ONE OTHER ITEM THAT I'VE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE GOING BACK QUITE SOME TIME, WHICH IS THAT IN ORDER NOT TO PULL STAFF AWAY FROM THE SCIENTIFIC AREA, WHICH IS REALLY RAMPING UP TO PUSH FORWARD ON THE CRITICAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, I THINK TO MOVE THE MAJOR FACILITIES GRANTS, YOU'RE REALLY GOING TO HAVE TO ADD SUBSTANTIAL STAFFING TO THIS COMMITTEE. AND IT'S QUITE COMMON IN OTHER CATEGORIES OF COMPETITION WITH THE STATE, OBVIOUSLY LORI HAS GOT A BACKGROUND IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AS I DO, AS WELL WHERE IF YOU COMPETE FOR BOND ALLOCATION, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU PUT UP A PERCENTAGE OF YOUR APPLICATION AMOUNT. IT'S REFUNDABLE IF YOU DON'T GET AN ALLOCATION. IF YOU DO GET AN ALLOCATION, IT BECOMES PART OF YOUR QUALIFIED COST.
IN THIS AREA, TO REALLY BE ABLE TO STAFF UP QUICKLY AND HANDLE IT ON A CASH-FLOW BASIS, IF WE WERE TO CHARGE A THIRD OF A PERCENT, FOR EXAMPLE, ON A $10 MILLION APPLICATION, THAT'S GOING TO BE $33,000. AND WHAT WE CAN DO, IF WE ARE GETTING A HUNDRED MILLION IN APPLICATIONS, THAT'S $330,000, BUT BASICALLY THROUGH AN APPLICATION FEE THAT THE INSTITUTIONS COULD PUT UP ON A CASH-FLOW BASIS, WE CAN GET THE OVERHEAD WHEN WE NEED IT, WHICH IS BEFORE -- THE BULK OF THE OVERHEAD WE'RE GOING TO NEED BEFORE WE APPROVE THE PROJECT. WE WILL USE LESS OVERHEAD DURING THE ADMINISTRATION AND BUILDOUT OF THE PROJECT ON OVERSIGHT THAN THE EXTRAORDINARILY INTENSIVE REVIEW OF THE APPLICATIONS THAT OCCURS PRIOR TO APPROVAL, WHICH IS WHEN WE NEED THAT FUNDING. BUT ESSENTIALLY FROM THE INSTITUTIONS' POINT OF VIEW, IF THEY APPLY AND DON'T GET IT, THEY GET THE MONEY BACK. IF THEY APPLY AND DO IT GET IT, THEY WILL HAVE THAT COST RECOVERED IN THE GRANT THAT'S MADE.
THIS ALLOWS US TO STAY COMPLETELY WITHIN OUR OVERHEAD LIMITATIONS BECAUSE IT WOULD COUNT AGAINST OUR OVERHEAD ON LIMITATION, BUT IT WOULD ALLOW US TO GET THE MONEY ON A CASH-FLOW BASIS WHEN WE NEED IT FOR BUDGETING TO HAVE THE STAFF. IF YOU HAVE A LEVERAGED PROGRAM WITH OUR 300 MILLION THAT EVEN PRODUCES 600 MILLION IN FACILITIES, AND I THINK IT WILL PRODUCE MORE WITH LOCAL BORROWING BY ENTITIES AND PRIVATE DONATIONS, BUT AT A 12-PERCENT INFLATION RATE, THAT'S $72 MILLION WE LOSE EVERY YEAR IN DELAY OR 36 MILLION IN EVERY SIX MONTHS. SO IT'S EXTRAORDINARY BURDEN ON ALL OF US, AND WE'RE LOSING FACILITIES EFFECTIVELY THAT WE COULD FUND. BUT IN ORDER TO HAVE THOROUGH REVIEW AND PROVIDE THE PROPER STAFFING, WE'VE GOT TO CREATE A CASH FLOW REVENUE SOURCE, AND I WOULD JUST PUT THAT ON THE TABLE FOR DISCUSSION SO THAT PERHAPS IN OUR NEXT MEETING WE COULD DISCUSS THAT AS AN OPTION FOR STAFFING UP QUICKLY.
CHAIRMAN DOMS: I THINK THAT'S AN EXCELLENT IDEA, BOB. I GUESS I'D ASK ZACH AND LORI TO TAKE THAT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND GIVE SOME THOUGHT AND PUT A LITTLE -- TAKE IT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER IN TERMS OF DEFINITION, AND AT OUR NEXT MEETING, WE COULD PUT THAT ON THE AGENDA AS AN ITEM FOR DISCUSSION.
MR. KLEIN: APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH.
DR. HALL: OKAY. GOOD. WE WILL -- THAT'S FINE. THIS IS NOT -- WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT NOW THE SHARED FACILITIES RFA.
MR. KLEIN: NO.
CHAIRMAN DOMS: NO. THIS IS MAJOR, FOR MAJOR.
DR. HALL: THE MAJOR STUFF.
CHAIRMAN DOMS: THAT'S DOWN THE ROAD, BUT THAT'S A GOOD POINT HERE. AND ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO MINIMIZE OUR COST AND STRETCH OUR DOLLARS IS A REAL PLUS.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, ISSUES? THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. THIS MEETING STANDS ADJOURNED.
(THE MEETING WAS THEN ADJOURNED AT 04:46 P.M.)
 
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
 
I, BETH C. DRAIN, A CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER IN AND FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING TRANSCRIPT OF THE TELEPHONIC PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL FACILITIES WORKING GROUP OF THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE IN THE MATTER OF ITS REGULAR MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 1, 2006, WAS HELD AS HEREIN APPEARS AND THAT THIS IS THE ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT THEREOF AND THAT THE STATEMENTS THAT APPEAR IN THIS TRANSCRIPT WERE REPORTED STENOGRAPHICALLY BY ME AND TRANSCRIBED BY ME. I ALSO CERTIFY THAT THIS TRANSCRIPT IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING.