State Stem Cell Agency Facilities Working Group Transcript 5/2/07a
This is an uncertified HTML copy of the transcript. 
Click here for a certified PDF transcript.
California State Stem Cell Agency
REGULAR MEETING 05-02-07_a
|
||||||||
| LOCATION: |
|
|||||||
| DATE: |
|
|||||||
| REPORTER: |
|
|||||||
| BRS FILE NO.: |
|
|||||||
| SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 2007 | ||||||||
| 09:21 A.M. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: MAY I ASK THE MEMBERS TO TAKE THEIR SEATS AND OTHERS TO PLEASE COME TO ORDER. WE'LL NOW CALL THE ROLL. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER, ARE WE READY FOR THE ROLL CALL? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES, WE ARE. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: DAVID LICHTENGER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: PRESENT. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: PRESENT. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: DEBORAH HYSEN. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: PRESENT. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: EDWARD KASHIAN. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: PRESENT. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: JANET WRIGHT. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: PRESENT. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: JEFF SHEEHY. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: HERE. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: JOAN SAMUELSON. MARCY FEIT. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: HERE. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: ROBERT KLEIN. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: HERE. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: SHERRY LANSING. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I'D LIKE TO WELCOME ALL OF THOSE TO THE MEETING OF THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF REGENERATIVE MEDICINE'S FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. IN ADDITION TO THE MEMBERS PRESENT, I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE LORI HOFFMAN, THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATING OFFICER. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AND NOW THE ACTING PRESIDENT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: NOW THE ACTING PRESIDENT. ARLENE CHIU, THE INTERIM CHIEF SCIENTIFIC OFFICER; AND RICK KELLER, THE SENIOR OFFICER FOR SCIENTIFIC MEDICAL RESEARCH FACILITIES. RICK, IF YOU COULD PLEASE INTRODUCE THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CIRM STAFF HERE TO SUPPORT THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: SURE. I'D LIKE TO. TO MY LEFT IS PAT BEAUPRE BECKER, WHO'S GOING TO BE THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT TODAY FOR YOU. AMY LEWIS FROM OUR GRANTS OFFICE. DISTRIBUTING MATERIAL IS MAYBEL CORTEZ. AND TO MY RIGHT, AS YOU KNOW, MELISSA KING. AND I THINK IN THE AUDIENCE ALSO GIL SAMBRANO FROM THE GRANTS OFFICE. I THINK I'VE GOT EVERYBODY. AND I'D ALSO POINT OUT GENERAL COUNSEL PRESENT IS JAMES HARRISON. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: AND TAMAR PACHTER. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: AND TAMAR PACHTER IS OUR GENERAL COUNSEL. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. AT THIS POINT ICOC CHAIR BOB KLEIN WILL BRIEF THE WORKING GROUP ON ACTIONS TAKEN THIS MORNING AT THE ICOC MEETING THAT ARE OF INTEREST TO THE WORKING GROUP. BOB. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YOU'VE ALREADY, CHAIRMAN, PRESAGED PART OF THIS BY BEING DESIGNATED AS THE REAL ESTATE CHAIR. CONGRATULATIONS TO YOU AND THANK YOU FOR ACCEPTING THE RESPONSIBILITY. | ||||||||
| ADDITIONALLY, DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL, AS THE VICE CHAIR, IS HERE. AT THE REQUEST OF THE CHAIR AND THE VICE CHAIR OF THIS COMMITTEE AND A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORTED HOLDING PUBLIC HEARINGS WITH A GOAL TO DEFINE OR TO REFINE AND OBTAIN PUBLIC COMMENT AND COMMENT FROM POTENTIAL APPLICANTS ON THE INFORMATION NEEDED AND THE DETAIL NEEDED TO HAVE A FULL UNDERSTANDING BY THE PUBLIC AND THE APPLICANTS OF DEFINITIONS, RULES, AND POLICIES FOR THE MAJOR FACILITIES RFA OF 222 MILLION. | ||||||||
| IT WAS THE INTENT THAT, INSTEAD OF BEING SUBMITTED NOW AS A CONCEPT RFA ON JUNE 5TH, IT WILL BE SUBMITTED ON AUGUST 5TH SO THAT WE CAN PROCEED WITH THAT PORTION OF THIS COMMITTEE'S WORK. | ||||||||
| OF GREAT IMPORTANCE, AS MENTIONED BY THE CHAIR, DAVID LICHTENGER, THE BOARD TOOK ACTION TO CREATE A CO-EQUAL LEADERSHIP TEAM WITH ARLENE CHIU LEADING THE SCIENTIFIC PORTION OF THIS AGENCY AND LORI HOFFMAN LEADING OPERATIONS AND FINANCE AND ALSO HAVING THE TECHNICAL LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY AS THE ACTING PRESIDENT. SO CERTAINLY OUR CONGRATULATIONS TO BOTH OF THEM AND OUR DEEP RESPECT AND APPRECIATION FOR THEM TAKING ON THOSE ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES. | ||||||||
| THERE WAS A GENERAL COMMENDATION FROM THE BOARD FOR THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC TEAM AND FOR THE ENTIRE OPERATIONS TEAM. SO WE CERTAINLY WOULD PASS THAT ON TO ALL THE STAFF OF THE AGENCY. DAVID. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, BOB. I'D JUST LIKE TO THANK THE ICOC MEMBERS AND THEIR VOTE OF CONFIDENCE IN ME IN CHAIRING THIS GROUP AND AS WELL AS MY FELLOW MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS PUBLIC COMMENT. THE WORKING GROUP WILL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF EACH DAY OF OUR SESSIONS, SO WE'LL NOW HEAR COMMENTS FROM ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK. WE ASK THAT YOU LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO NO MORE THAN THREE MINUTES. ANYONE WHO IS INTERESTED IN SPEAKING, PLEASE STEP FORWARD TO THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME AND AFFILIATION. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MR. SIMPSON: JOHN SIMPSON FROM THE FOUNDATION FOR TAXPAYER AND CONSUMER RIGHTS. I JUST SIMPLY WANTED TO, FOR THE RECORD, AT THIS MEETING COMMEND THE ICOC FOR THE RESOLUTION THAT WAS PASSED COMMITTING TO PUBLIC HEARINGS. I ALSO WANTED TO COMMENT ON HOW THIS PARTICULAR MEETING WILL PROBABLY BE A MUCH MORE OPEN AND TRANSPARENT PROCESS THAN THE WAY THAT THE RESEARCH GRANTS ARE REVIEWED. AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT PERHAPS IN THE FUTURE, AS THE REVIEW FOR RESEARCH GRANTS PROCEEDS, THAT PERHAPS THAT WORKING GROUP COULD LEARN SOMETHING FROM WHAT I EXPECT TO BE A MORE FULLY OPEN AND TRANSPARENT PROCESS WITH THIS WORKING GROUP. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND PARTICIPATION. ANY OTHER PUBLIC SPEAKERS? OKAY. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS THE REVIEW OF THE DRAFT FACILITIES GRANTS ADMINISTRATION POLICY. NOW, THIS DOCUMENT REPRESENTS THE RULES THAT THE GRANTEES MUST FOLLOW WITH RESPECT TO FACILITIES GRANTS. THE DRAFT DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED BY THE CIRM STAFF AND GENERAL COUNSEL. THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP WILL REVIEW THIS DOCUMENT, MAKE CHANGES TO IT, AND THEN SUBMIT IT TO THE ICOC FOR APPROVAL. TO ALLOW MEMBERS SOME TIME FOR REVIEW, WE'LL TAKE THIS UP AT OUR MEETING TOMORROW, TIME PERMITTING. WE ANTICIPATE THAT THERE WILL BE CHANGES AND CLARIFICATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS RECOMMENDED AT THAT TIME. | ||||||||
| THOSE CHANGES WILL BE ADDRESSED BY STAFF AND A NEW DRAFT WILL BE PREPARED FOR REVIEW BY THE WORKING GROUP AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING. | ||||||||
| ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. | ||||||||
| OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM WILL BE THE TECHNICAL REVIEW OF THE SHARED LABORATORY AND STEM CELL TECHNIQUES COURSE GRANT APPLICATIONS. THE VICE CHAIR AND I HAVE HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS IN PREPARING FOR THIS ITEM ALONG WITH BOB KLEIN AND THE CIRM STAFF. I WANT TO SPEND A FEW MINUTES TO GIVE THE WORKING GROUP MEMBERS AND THE PUBLIC A ROAD MAP FOR TODAY'S REVIEW. | ||||||||
| FIRST OF ALL, ASK GENERAL COUNSEL, TAMAR PACHTER, TO REVIEW THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICIES THAT GOVERN THE WORKING GROUP'S CONSIDERATION OF THESE APPLICATIONS. NEXT I'LL ASK RICK KELLER TO BRIEFLY REVIEW THE PROCEDURE THAT WILL BE USED FOR THIS REVIEW. COPIES OF THIS PROCEDURE ARE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKETS AND DISTRIBUTED THIS MORNING. AT THAT POINT I'LL OPEN A DISCUSSION WITH THE WORKING GROUP ON SEVERAL ISSUES. | ||||||||
| TAMAR, COULD YOU START US OFF ON THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST? | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: YES. IN YOUR PACKET IS A LIST IN ORDER OF REVIEW WHICH INCLUDES THE RECUSALS FOR EACH APPLICATION BASED ON THE WAY YOU COMPLETED YOUR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ANALYSIS. IF YOU ARE RECUSED FOR A PARTICULAR APPLICATION, YOU NEED TO GET UP AND LEAVE THE ROOM BECAUSE THAT IS THE REQUIREMENT OF THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY THAT GOVERNS THIS WORKING GROUP. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, TAMAR. IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, I'LL ASK RICK KELLER TO GIVE A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE REVIEW PROCESS, AND RICK WILL BE ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: CAN I COMMENT? MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IN THE SCORE SHEET ITSELF, THERE IS A LIST OF RECUSALS. SO EVERYONE HAS A BOOK WITH SCORE SHEETS, AND THERE'S A COLUMN FOR RECUSALS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, BOB. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: AS TO THE PROCEDURES FOR YOUR REVIEW TODAY, I WANT TO MENTION THAT THE REVIEWS OF THESE APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY BOTH THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP AND THIS FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP HAS COMPLETED ITS REVIEW OF THE SCIENTIFIC MERITS OF THE PROPOSALS, AND THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE GOING FORWARD TO THE ICOC AT THE JUNE MEETING AS WELL. | ||||||||
| THIS WORKING GROUP WILL EVALUATE THE RENOVATION PLANS FOR TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE RENOVATION PLANS AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ICOC. THE APPLICANTS WERE ADVISED THAT ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED IN PART 2, WHICH IS THE CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT PORTION OF THE REQUEST, WOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. THUS, PART 2 APPLICATIONS HAVE ALL BEEN POSTED ON THE CIRM'S PUBLIC WEBSITE, AND A COPY OF ALL THE APPLICATIONS IS AVAILABLE AT THE RESOURCE TABLE HERE IN THE ROOM AS WELL. | ||||||||
| IN THE COURSE OF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW, HOWEVER, EACH APPLICANT WILL BE REFERRED TO BY APPLICATION NUMBER TODAY. | ||||||||
| THE PROCEDURE CALLS FOR ASSIGNING EACH GRANT TO A PRIMARY REVIEWER AND A SECONDARY REVIEWER CONCERNING EXPERTISE AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST OF EACH MEMBER. THESE ASSIGNMENTS WERE MADE AFTER THE APRIL 13TH MEETING, AND STAFF HAS PREPARED A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT REFERRED TO AS THE PROJECT SYNOPSIS. AND YOU HAVE COPIES OF THE PROJECT SYNOPSIS IN YOUR PACKETS THERE. | ||||||||
| THE THREE PRIMARY REVIEWERS WERE DRAWN FROM THE REAL ESTATE SPECIALIST MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP. SECONDARY REVIEWERS WERE DRAWN FROM THE SIX PATIENT ADVOCATE MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP. THE REVIEWERS HAVE PREPARED THEIR OWN COMMENTS THAT ADDRESS THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE APPLICATION CONSIDERING THE REVIEW CRITERIA ADOPTED BY THE ICOC AND INCLUDED IN THE RFA. THESE COMMENTS ARE DRAFT AND ARE PREPARED AS NOTES FOR THE REVIEWERS TO USE TODAY IN THEIR ORAL SUMMARIZATION OF EVALUATING THE GRANTS. | ||||||||
| WHILE NOT COVERED IN THE PROCEDURE, THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP DIRECTED THAT A STAFF ANALYSIS BE PREPARED FOR EACH APPLICATION THAT WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE REVIEWERS ON APRIL 23D AND 24TH AND MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC ON CIRM'S PUBLIC WEBSITE ON MAY 1ST. THE STAFF ANALYSIS IS POSTED, AND COPIES ARE ALSO AVAILABLE AT THE RESOURCE TABLE. | ||||||||
| THE PROCEDURE CALLS FOR EACH MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE TO ASSIGN A SCORE. AS BOB POINTED OUT, THERE'S A CONFIDENTIAL BALLOT VOTING BOOK THAT HAS BEEN PREPARED THAT IDENTIFIES THE SCORING AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE A CONFLICT ON THAT PARTICULAR APPLICATION. THE CIRM STAFF, AT THE CONCLUSION OF OUR REVIEW TODAY, WILL COLLECT THE CONFIDENTIAL BALLOTS AND RECORD THE SCORES. WHEN ALL 22 APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED, THE CIRM STAFF WILL PRESENT THE INFORMATION FROM THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP. THAT INFORMATION FROM THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP IS FROM A CONFIDENTIAL GRANT REVIEW SESSION WHERE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION WAS INVOLVED; AND, THEREFORE, WE WILL NEED TO GO INTO A CLOSED SESSION TO REVIEW THAT. | ||||||||
| THE WORKING GROUP WILL RETURN TO OPEN SESSION TO BEGIN PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW AS SPECIFIED IN THE PROCEDURE. THE VICE CHAIR, MR. DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL, WILL PRESIDE OVER THE REVIEW. THE PROCEDURE CALLS FOR THE WORKING GROUP TO CONSIDER GEOGRAPHIC AND OTHER FACTORS WHERE APPROPRIATE IN THAT PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW. | ||||||||
| YOU'LL FIRST CONSIDER THE 22 SHARED LABORATORY FACILITIES APPLICATIONS AND PLACE THESE APPLICATIONS IN ONE OF THREE CATEGORIES. THE RFA ANTICIPATED FUNDING OF 15 SHARED LABORATORY GRANTS. THOSE CATEGORIES ARE TIER 1, RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING; TIER 2, RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING IF FUNDING IS AVAILABLE; AND TIER 3, NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING AT THIS TIME. | ||||||||
| STAFF WILL PROVIDE DATA ON THE OVERALL SCORES AND THE CUMULATIVE FUNDING COMMITMENTS AS THE REVIEW IS CONDUCTED. ONCE THE PROCESS HAS BEEN COMPLETED, WE WILL PRESENT THE TECHNICAL REVIEW SCORES. THERE WERE NINE APPLICATIONS THAT PROPOSED THE OPTIONAL STEM CELL TECHNIQUES COURSE. THE RFA ANTICIPATES FUNDING FIVE SITES FOR THE TECHNIQUES COURSE. WE WILL REVIEW THE SHARED LAB APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE A TECHNIQUES COURSE THAT ARE INCLUDED IN TIER 1 AND TIER 2 SINCE YOU MUST HAVE A POSITIVE RESPONSE ON THE SHARED LAB IN ORDER TO PUT ON THE TECHNIQUES COURSE. THE FINAL RECOMMENDATION FOR EACH TIER WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE ICOC ALONG WITH THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS, AS I MENTIONED. | ||||||||
| THE PROCESS FOR REVIEW WILL BE THAT I WILL ANNOUNCE THE GRANT NUMBERS TO BE REVIEWED, THE NAME OF THE PRIMARY REVIEWER AND THE NAME OF THE SECONDARY REVIEWER, AND ANY RECUSALS THAT HAVE BEEN DETERMINED FOR THAT APPLICATION. MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP RECUSED FROM DISCUSSING THE APPLICATION MAY LEAVE THE ROOM AT THAT TIME. WE WILL ALSO ANNOUNCE ANY STAFF RECUSALS. ONCE ACTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED ON AN ITEM AND THE VOTING HAS BEEN COMPLETED, STAFF WILL ADVISE ANY MEMBERS UNDER RECUSAL TO RETURN TO THE ROOM FOR THE NEXT ITEM. | ||||||||
| FINALLY, I WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT THE REVIEW TODAY IS THE TECHNICAL REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION BY THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. IF YOU PARTICIPATED IN THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP REVIEW OF THESE APPLICATIONS, YOU NEED TO BE CERTAIN THAT YOU MAINTAIN THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE WORK OF THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP. YOU SHOULD NOT DISCUSS OR SPECULATE ON THE SCIENTIFIC NATURE OF THE APPLICATION, BUT RATHER CONFINE YOUR DISCUSSION TO THE TECHNICAL REVIEW CRITERIA PROVIDED FOR IN THE PROCEDURE. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION THAT MAY NOT OCCUR TO YOU IN PARTICIPATING IN DISCUSSION OF ITEMS; THEREFORE, IF ANYONE ON THE WORKING GROUP SHOULD INADVERTENTLY BEGIN DISCUSSING INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE REGARDED AS BEING WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP, OUR COUNSEL, TAMAR PACHTER, WILL POLITELY INTERRUPT YOU TO REMIND YOU OF THE CONFIDENTIAL NATURE OF THE TOPIC AND ASK THAT YOU NOT DISCUSS IT ANY FURTHER. | ||||||||
| THAT IS THE PROCEDURE FOR TODAY. IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, RICK. WELL DONE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR RICK? OKAY. | ||||||||
| SO FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ALL UNDERSTAND THE DOCUMENTS THAT RICK IS REFERRING TO AS THE PROJECT SUMMARIES. IN THIS DOCUMENT STAFF WILL SUMMARIZE THE STRENGTHS, THE WEAKNESSES OF THE APPLICATION DRAWING FROM THE DRAFT REVIEWS OF THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY REVIEWERS, AS WELL AS THE MEMBERS' DISCUSSION OF THE APPLICATION TODAY. ONCE CIRM STAFF HAS DRAFTED THAT DOCUMENT, THEY WILL DISTRIBUTE THE DRAFT TO THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY REVIEWERS ORIGINALLY ASSIGNED TO THAT APPLICATION FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT. | ||||||||
| CIRM STAFF WILL INCORPORATE THE COMMENTS OF THE REVIEWERS. THE FINAL PROJECT SUMMARY WILL BECOME THE PUBLIC REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP TO THE ICOC AND WILL BECOME A PUBLIC DOCUMENT. | ||||||||
| DO ANY OF THE MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT SUMMARIES? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: JUST AS TO OTHER DOCUMENTS, I WOULD POINT OUT THAT ON THE ROSTER FOR THE COMMITTEE, I'M LISTED AS EX OFFICIO. ACTUALLY ON THIS I AM A MEMBER AS VERSUS EX OFFICIO. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BOB, THANK YOU. DULY NOTED. WE'LL HAVE STAFF CORRECT THAT. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| NEXT I WANT TO REVIEW THE SCORING SYSTEM THAT WE'LL BE USING TODAY. EACH OF YOU WILL HAVE -- SHOULD HAVE A SCORING BOOK IN FRONT OF YOU. AS WE REVIEW THE APPLICATIONS AND COMPLETE OUR DISCUSSION, WE'LL COMPLETE THE SCORECARD. AFTER REVIEW OF EACH APPLICATION, YOU WILL BE ASKED TO RECORD A PRELIMINARY SCORE FOR EACH OF THE SIX EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR THE SHARED LABORATORY PROPOSAL AND, IF APPLICABLE, FOR THE STEM CELL TECHNIQUES COURSE. I SAY PRELIMINARY SCORE BECAUSE YOU WILL HAVE TIME, AFTER WE CONSIDER ALL 22 OF THE APPLICATIONS, AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECONSIDER OR ADJUST ANY SCORING IN LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSION AND TO REVISE YOUR SCORES. THESE FINAL SCORES WILL BE TURNED INTO STAFF AT THE COMPLETION OF OUR TECHNICAL REVIEW. | ||||||||
| ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS BY THE MEMBERS REGARDING THE SCORECARD? | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: I HAVE COMMENTS ABOUT DOCUMENTS. COULD YOU GO BACK THROUGH THAT, PLEASE? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ABSOLUTELY. SO ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE PROJECT SUMMARIES, MARCY? | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: YES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: AT THE END OF THE MEETING TODAY, IS THIS CORRECT, RICK, END OF THE MEETING TODAY? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: RIGHT. IT WILL TAKE SOME TIME TO PREPARE THEM. AFTER THE MEETING IT WOULD SIMPLY BE A SYNOPSIS OF THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE PROPOSALS AND DRAW UPON THE NOTES THAT YOU'VE PUT -- YOU'VE MADE AND THE DISCUSSION HERE TODAY TO ESSENTIALLY PROVIDE A PUBLIC RECORD THAT WOULD BE GOING FORWARD SIMILAR TO WHAT THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP DOES. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: SO THAT'S A DOCUMENT THAT STAFF'S GOING TO DRAW AS WE REVIEW EACH APPLICATION? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? THAT'S NOT A DOCUMENT WE CURRENTLY HAVE? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: CORRECT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THIS IS A DOCUMENT THAT IS GOING TO BE A WORK IN PROGRESS TODAY AND TOMORROW. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: AND WE WOULD DISTRIBUTE THE DRAFT. FOR THOSE THAT ARE ASSIGNED TO THE COMMITTEE, WE WOULD DISTRIBUTE OUR DRAFT PROJECT SUMMARIES TO THE RESPECTIVE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY REVIEWERS SO THAT YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY REFLECT THE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS APPROPRIATELY. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: OKAY. THAT'S CLEAR. THANKS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THE PROJECT SUMMARIES OR THE SCORING OF THESE SIX EVALUATION CRITERIA? | ||||||||
| NOW I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE A PROCESS FOR ADDRESSING A RESOLUTION OF TECHNICAL ISSUES RAISED IN THE STAFF ANALYSIS THAT RELATE TO THE FINANCIAL TERMS OF THE APPLICATIONS. REVIEWING THE APPLICATION, STAFF HAS IDENTIFIED ISSUES WITH HOW APPLICANTS ADDRESSED FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS STATED IN THE RFA. FOR INSTANCE, SOME OF THE APPLICATIONS REQUEST CIRM FUNDING FOR FEES, ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, AND CONTINGENCY THAT EXCEED THE 25-PERCENT LIMIT ESTABLISHED FOR SUCH COSTS IN THE RFA. IN OTHER CASES, THE SOURCE AND/OR AMOUNT OF MATCHING FUNDS CITED BY THE APPLICANT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFA. | ||||||||
| WE'RE ALL GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS FOR THE FIRST TIME, LEARNING TOGETHER. IT'S NOT AT ALL SURPRISING THAT THESE KINDS OF ISSUES HAVE ARISEN. AS WE LEARN, WE HOPE TO IMPROVE OUR PROCEDURES FOR LATER FACILITIES RFA'S, THAT WE CAN HAVE THESE KINDS OF MATTERS RESOLVED BEFORE THE WORKING GROUP'S CONSIDERATION. FOR THE TIME BEING, TO RESOLVE THESE ISSUES FOR PURPOSES OF THIS REVIEW, THE VICE CHAIR AND I, IN CONSULTATION WITH CIRM STAFF AND GENERAL COUNSEL, RECOMMEND THAT WE ADOPT A PROCEDURE THAT PERMITS APPLICANTS TO RESOLVE THESE TECHNICAL FINANCIAL ISSUES IN A UNIFORM WAY BEFORE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE SUBMITTED TO THE ICOC. | ||||||||
| IN MOST CASES RESOLUTION WILL REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR COSTS THAT EXCEED THE COST GUIDELINES IN THE RFA. IN OTHER CASES THE APPLICANT WILL BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY MATCHING FUNDS TO REPLACE A SOURCE THAT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE RFA. IN EVERY CASE THE ISSUE AND THE RESOLUTION OF THAT ISSUE WILL BE UNIFORM. | ||||||||
| THIS OPPORTUNITY FOR RESOLUTION WILL PERMIT THE WORKING GROUP TO IGNORE THESE FINANCIAL ISSUES FOR THE PURPOSE OF SCORING THESE APPLICATIONS BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE APPLICANTS WILL AGREE TO RESOLVE THEM. FOR EACH APPLICATION FOR WHICH THE STAFF HAS IDENTIFIED ISSUES REQUIRING RESOLUTION, WE PROPOSE THAT THE WORKING GROUP EVALUATE THE PROPOSAL ASSUMING THAT THESE ISSUES WILL BE RESOLVED. IF THE MEMBERS ACCEPT THIS PROPOSAL, WE WILL ALL SCORE THE APPLICATIONS ASSUMING THOSE ISSUES DID NOT EXIST. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: COULD I ASK A QUESTION AT THIS POINT? IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING FROM TALKING TO THE CHAIR AND THE VICE CHAIR THAT AS EACH APPLICATION IS CONSIDERED, THERE WILL BE A RECOMMENDATION ON HOW TO RESOLVE THESE TECHNICAL ISSUES AS A MOTION AND THAT THIS COMMITTEE WILL ACTUALLY VOTE TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT WE ACCEPT THAT RESOLUTION SO THAT THE ASSUMPTION IS ONLY THAT THE GRANTEE WILL THEN AGREE TO MEET THOSE CONDITIONS. AND IF THEY DON'T, THEN THE BOARD WILL BE AWARE THAT WE HAVE SCORED BASED UPON WHATEVER THE VOTE IS OF THIS COMMITTEE; IS THAT CORRECT? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. AND IT MAY BE HELPFUL TO PHRASE IT IN YET ANOTHER WAY. AND THAT IS WHEN WE DO -- AFTER WE HAVE A DISCUSSION AND THOSE ISSUES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED, FOR THE PURPOSES OF OUR PRELIMINARY SCORE, IT WILL BE AS THOUGH THE ISSUES SO IDENTIFIED HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THAT'S CORRECT, DAVID, YES. SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ASSUMPTION THAT THE APPLICANTS WILL ACCEPT THE PROPOSED SOLUTION. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO THE WORKING GROUP MEMBERS? DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS PROPOSED RESOLUTION? | ||||||||
| SO STAFF HAS PREPARED A CHART. FOR EACH TYPE OF FINANCIAL ISSUE, STAFF HAS LISTED THE APPLICATIONS IN WHICH THEY ARE FOUND, THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION THAT WILL APPLY TO ALL THE APPLICATIONS WITH THE SAME ISSUE. AS WE DISCUSS EACH APPLICATION, I'LL NOTE THE ISSUE, THE RESOLUTION, AND THEN WE WILL DISCUSS THE MERITS OF THE APPLICATION, AND RECORD OUR PRELIMINARY VOTES. AT THE END OF THE DISCUSSION, WE'LL RECORD OUR FINAL SCORES AND THEN PROCEED TO THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW. | ||||||||
| AFTER WE'VE COMPLETED OUR REVIEW, STAFF WILL SEND LETTERS TO THE APPLICANTS IDENTIFYING THE TECHNICAL FINANCIAL ISSUES IN THEIR APPLICATIONS AND THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION, ASKING THE APPLICANTS TO RESPOND BY A CERTAIN DATE TO LET CIRM KNOW YES OR NO WHETHER THEY'RE WILLING TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION. THESE RESPONSES WILL BE INCORPORATED IN THE PROJECT SUMMARIES WHICH WILL GO TO THE ICOC. | ||||||||
| DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION OF THESE ISSUES? IF NOT, DOES IT MEET WITH THE MEMBERS' APPROVAL? IT SEEMS TO BE UNANIMOUS THAT THIS PROCEDURE WILL BE THE PROCEDURE WE FOLLOW TODAY. | ||||||||
| SO I THINK WE'RE AGREED THAT THESE STAFF ISSUES THAT CAN BE RESOLVED WILL BE NOT CONSIDERED IN THE SCORING OF THE APPLICATION IF THEY CAN BE RESOLVED. TO HELP US THROUGH THIS, I'LL ASK RICK KELLER TO INDICATE, WHEN HE ANNOUNCES THE APPLICATION FOR REVIEW, WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A FINANCIAL ISSUE FOR THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION BEING DISCUSSED THAT CAN BE RESOLVED WITH THE PROCEDURE WE HAVE JUST DISCUSSED. IS THAT ACCEPTABLE? DOES EVERYONE AGREE THAT THAT'S ACCEPTABLE? OKAY. | ||||||||
| SO NOW I BELIEVE WE'RE READY TO START THE REVIEW PROCESS. THE PROCESS WILL BE RICK WILL ANNOUNCE THE APPLICATION NUMBER AND INDICATE IF THERE ARE ANY RECUSALS. IF THERE ARE ANY RECUSALS FROM MEMBERS, YOU WILL NEED TO LEAVE THE ROOM UNTIL THE REVIEW IS COMPLETED. RICK WILL THEN INDICATE THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY REVIEWERS AND WHETHER OR NOT ANY FINANCIAL ISSUES RAISED IN THE ANALYSIS CAN BE RESOLVED. THE PRIMARY REVIEWER AND THE SECONDARY REVIEWER WILL, IN TURN, EXPLAIN THE EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION, NOTING ITS STRENGTHS, ITS WEAKNESSES, AND THERE WILL BE DISCUSSION BY THE FULL GROUP. | ||||||||
| WHEN THE DISCUSSION IS ENDED, I'LL INVITE YOU TO ENTER A PRELIMINARY SCORE FOR THE APPLICATION. I WILL TRY TO KEEP THE REVIEW OF EACH APPLICATION, INCLUDING DISCUSSION, TO 10 TO 15 MINUTES SO THAT WE CAN COMPLETE OUR WORK ON TIME. RICK WILL THEN ANNOUNCE THE NEXT APPLICATION FOR REVIEW AND ANYONE WHO IS RECUSED FOR THE PRIOR ITEM WILL BE INVITED BACK INTO THE ROOM. ANY QUESTIONS? | ||||||||
| SO THAT COMPLETES THE TECHNICAL REVIEWS. AND THEN AFTER THE TECHNICAL REVIEWS, WE'LL BE GOING INTO A CLOSED SESSION AS CALLED FOR IN THE PROCEDURES. BEFORE WE GO INTO THE CLOSED SESSION, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO REVIEW YOUR SCORING BOOKS AND MAKE ANY FINAL CHANGES IN THE SCORING BOOKS THAT WILL BE COLLECTED. THE COMPOSITE SCORES ONE TO A HUNDRED WILL BE CALCULATED AS THE AVERAGE OF THOSE WHO WERE ELIGIBLE AND SCORE THE APPLICATION. THE SCORES WILL BE AVAILABLE WHEN WE RETURN FROM CLOSED SESSION. | ||||||||
| SO AT THIS POINT, RICK, I THINK WE'RE READY TO START THE TECHNICAL REVIEW. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: ALL RIGHT. THE COMMITTEE IDENTIFIED THREE PROJECTS THAT WOULD BE TAKEN UP INITIALLY BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT MEMBER SHERRY LANSING WOULD BE JOINING THE GROUP BY TELEPHONE, BUT COULD NOT MEET BEFORE 10 A.M. SO THAT LINE IS OPEN, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD PROBABLY PROCEED TO A PASS ON THE FIRST THREE. AND WE'RE NOW GOING TO GO PAST THE 500 AND 501 BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT WE'VE MADE SOME REASSIGNMENTS TO THE SECONDARY REVIEW. THOSE ARE ASSIGNED FOR JOAN SAMUELSON'S REVIEW AND WE'RE WAITING FOR THAT. | ||||||||
| SO THE NEXT ITEM THAT I THINK YOU COULD WORK ON, MR. CHAIRMAN, WOULD BE IN THE ORDER 504. AND THAT HAS MR. KASHIAN AS THE PRIMARY REVIEWER AND JEFF SHEEHY AS THE SECONDARY REVIEWER. AND THAT IS A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE I HAVE A STAFF CONFLICT BY VIRTUE OF PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: EXCUSE ME, RICK. COULD WE START ON A DIFFERENT ONE WHERE THERE'S NOT A STAFF CONFLICT SO WE CAN MAKE SOME PROGRESS? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: SURE. WE CAN DO THAT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. 505, 502. OKAY. SO 502 IT IS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: JUST TO LET THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS KNOW WHAT WE'RE STARTING WITH, WE'RE STARTING WITH APPLICATION CL1-00502-1. GIVE EVERYONE A MINUTE TO FIND THEIR DOCUMENTS. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: IF I COULD JUST ASK EVERYBODY TO PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONE, AND WE'LL ALSO TURN UP THE VOLUME A LITTLE BIT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IF EVERYONE IS READY, DOES EVERYONE HAVE 502 IN FRONT OF THEM? MARCY, IF YOU COULD -- WHO'S THE PRIMARY? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: GO TO STAFF FIRST. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: FOR CL-00502-1, THE PRIMARY REVIEWER IS MR. ED KASHIAN AND SECONDARY IS MEMBER MARCY FEIT. AND THE PROPOSAL IS A REQUEST OF 945,583, WHICH IS THE CIRM FUNDING AMOUNT. THE ONLY RECUSAL HERE IS MS. LANSING. | ||||||||
| (MEMBER LANSING IS RECUSED FROM APPLICATION 502-1 AND IS NOT PRESENT IN THE ROOM.) | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: RICK, ARE THERE ANY FINANCIAL ISSUES AS WE DISCUSSED ON THIS APPLICATION? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: LET ME REFER TO THAT. NO, THERE ARE NONE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU. SO, ED, IF YOU COULD PLEASE START THE PRIMARY REVIEW. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: HAPPY TO. FIRST OF ALL, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO CONGRATULATE OR COMMEND THE STAFF IN TERMS OF THE STAFF ANALYSIS. ALTHOUGH I DIDN'T ALWAYS AGREE WITH THE FACTS OF THE ANALYSIS, IT WAS REALLY HELPFUL TO ME. AND I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR THAT HELP. | ||||||||
| THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION, IN TERMS OF THE ONES THAT I REVIEWED, SCORED VERY HIGH. IT'S AN EXCELLENT APPLICATION THAT I BELIEVE IS RESPONSIVE IN ANY FORM. AND I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND TO THE ICOC COMMITTEE THAT IT BE FUNDED. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU, ED. MARCY. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: I AGREE. THE TOTAL AMOUNT THAT'S BEING REQUESTED FOR FUNDING IS 945,583. IN THIS PROJECT THE FACILITY HAS ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED. SO THERE'S A REAL COMMITMENT HERE ON THE PART OF THE INSTITUTION FOR THIS RESEARCH. THE BULK OF THE REQUEST IS BEING ASKED FOR FOR EQUIPMENT. AND OF A SPECIFIC NATURE, ONE OF THE PIECES OF EQUIPMENT THAT'S BEING REQUESTED IS A SCANNING DEVICE. THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO USE IMAGING AS A PART OF THE RESEARCH, AND I KNOW IN OUR OVERALL DISCUSSIONS IN THE INSTITUTE, IMAGING AS PART OF RESEARCH WAS A PROGRAM THAT WE FELT STRONGLY WE WANTED TO SEE MORE OF. | ||||||||
| SO THIS WAS, I THOUGHT, A VERY FINE APPLICATION, AND I GIVE IT A VERY HIGH SCORE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DO THE MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PRIMARY OR SECONDARY REVIEWER? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I'M JUST TRYING TO BE CLEAR ON THE PROCESS. SO WE'VE HAD A REVIEW AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO -- WE SHOULD WRITE IN PRELIMINARY SCORES? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF, RICK OR ED OR MARCY, AND QUESTIONS IN TERMS OF PARTICULAR ISSUES OR ABOUT COST OR ANY OF THE CATEGORIES FOR SCORING. AND AFTER THAT YOU CAN ENTER YOUR PRELIMINARY SCORE, WHICH THEN YOU'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADJUST AT THE END OF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW SESSION. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: SORRY TO BE STUTTERING, BUT I JUST -- I'M NOT TRYING TO MAKE THIS DIFFICULT, BUT I DON'T -- YOU KNOW, IF I'M GOING TO PUT DOWN NUMBERS, IT ALMOST FEELS LIKE WE SHOULD GO POINT BY POINT AND HAVE SOME SORT OF DISCUSSION. AND I KNOW ACTUALLY USING NUMBERS, THAT WE MADE THAT OPTIONAL, BUT IT IS A LITTLE BIT EASIER IF ANYBODY HAS A WILLINGNESS TO USE NUMBERS TO PROVIDE SOME GUIDANCE JUST BECAUSE I'M KIND OF LOST WITHOUT THAT. I'M JUST KIND OF PULLING THEM OUT OF MY HEAD. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: I'D BE GLAD TO GO THROUGH THE POINTS THAT I MADE ON IT. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: IS THAT OKAY? | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: ABSOLUTELY, YES. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR ME. CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: MARCY, JUST BEFORE I HAVE YOU ADDRESS THAT, THE VICE CHAIR WOULD LIKE TO SAY A FEW WORDS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: AS THE CHAIRMAN STATED, THAT THE NOTES THAT EACH ONE OF US HAS FOR THE APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED TO US ARE CONFIDENTIAL IN NATURE. THEY ARE DRAFTS AND THEY REMAIN SO. BUT AS MR. SHEEHY HAS STATED, AND I DON'T SEE ANY RESISTANCE FROM MS. FEIT, IT IS, THEREFORE, ELECTIVE IF YOU WANT TO DISCLOSE YOUR SCORES, ENTIRELY ELECTIVE. THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE CLEAR. YOU SHOULDN'T FEEL PRESSURED. YOU DON'T HAVE TO. IT'S UP TO YOU.I'LL SHARE WITH YOU MIGHT POSTURE WHEN I DO MY SECONDARY REVIEWS. I WILL BE SHARING THE SCORES BECAUSE I DO THINK IT DOES PROVIDE SOME FURTHER ILLUMINATION ON MY THINKING. AND SO YOU CAN AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH IT, AND IT COULD LEAD TO OTHER QUESTIONS. I KNOW WE'VE GOT TO KEEP THESE TO 10 TO 15 MINUTES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D JUST LIKE TO ADD ONE THING, MARCY, BEFORE. JEFF, WHEN I'M GOING TO BE DOING A PRIMARY REVIEW, I'M GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT EACH CATEGORY IN TERMS OF MY FEELINGS WHETHER THEY WERE AVERAGE, ABOVE AVERAGE, GOOD, EXCELLENT, BELOW AVERAGE. SO IT WOULD PROBABLY BE HELPFUL, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, TO ASK AND THE PRIMARY REVIEWERS TO BE TALKING IN TERMS OF COMPARED TO OF THIS OTHER REVIEWS HOW THEY COMPARED IN TERMS OF THOSE BROAD CATEGORIES. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: IN TERMS OF FEASIBILITY, AGAIN, THIS IS A PROJECT WHERE THE FACILITY HAS ALREADY JUST BEEN COMPLETED. AND THE BULK OF THE FUND IS BEING REQUESTED FOR EQUIPMENT. ABOUT $1650 IS ALL THAT'S BEING REQUESTED TO FINISH OFF SOME MINOR ALTERATIONS TO THE FACILITY. AND, AGAIN, AS STATED, THE EQUIPMENT IS RUNNING A LITTLE OVER 700,000. IN MY ESTIMATION, THE BULK OF THAT IS FOR A SCANNING DEVICE WHICH WOULD PROVIDE IMAGING OF THE RESEARCH, WHICH I THINK IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN THE INSTITUTE HOW WE'D LIKE TO SEE THE USE OF IMAGING A LOT MORE IN RESEARCH. SO THIS ORGANIZATION IS DEFINITELY HEADED IN THAT DIRECTION. | ||||||||
| SO FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, THIS IS DEFINITELY FEASIBLE. I GAVE IT A SCORE OF 15 OUT OF 15 FOR FEASIBILITY. | ||||||||
| IN TERMS OF THE COST, OBVIOUSLY THIS PROJECT EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF REQUIRED MATCHING FUNDS FOR A REQUEST AND COMES WITHIN THE LIMITS THAT THE RFA HAD PRESENTED. I THINK, LOOKING AT IT BRIEFLY, MY KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IMAGING EQUIPMENT COSTS, THAT THESE ARE REASONABLE COSTS. AND SO I GAVE IT 20 OUT OF 20 FOR COSTS. | ||||||||
| IN TERMS OF INSTITUTIONAL -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: EXCUSE ME. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. RICK, HAVE WE CALCULATED WHAT THIS EQUIPMENT COST WOULD BE ON A PER-SQUARE-FOOT BASIS ON ASSIGNABLE? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: NO, WE HAVEN'T. WE JUST HAVE THE COST OF THE EQUIPMENT INCLUDED IN THE REVIEW ON A COST-PER-PI BASIS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: CAN WE CALCULATE THAT? DOES SOMEONE HAVE A CALCULATOR? THANK YOU. MARCY, IF YOU COULD PROCEED WHILE RICK IS -- | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: IN TERMS OF INSTITUTIONAL EQUIPMENT, BECAUSE THE LABORATORY HAS ALREADY COMPLETED THE FACILITY AND THEY'RE JUST WANTING THE EQUIPMENT BASICALLY, WITHIN TWO MONTHS AFTER THEY RECEIVE THE GRANT, THEY BELIEVE THEY'LL BE OPERATIONAL. SO I THINK FROM AN INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT PERSPECTIVE, THEY'RE READY TO GO. SO THEY RECEIVED -- ON AN INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT PERSPECTIVE, THEY RECEIVED 20 OUT OF 20 FROM ME. | ||||||||
| OF COURSE, IN TERMS OF TIMING AND MILESTONES, THEY, AGAIN, SCORED VERY HIGH BECAUSE OF THEIR ABILITY TO GET GOING VERY QUICKLY. | ||||||||
| IN TERMS OF THEIR HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE, I DIDN'T SEE ANY ISSUE. THEY GAVE EVIDENCE OF PAST PROJECTS AND APPEARED TO BE ABLE TO COMPLETE THOSE AND HAVE REASONABLE TIMING AND OUTCOME. | ||||||||
| THE RESPONSIVENESS, OF COURSE, THIS IS A SHARED LABORATORY PROJECT. THERE WILL BE 18 RESEARCHERS INVOLVED FROM THE HOST INSTITUTION AND AN ADDITIONAL 12 INVESTIGATORS FROM OTHER INSTITUTIONS. SO IT IS A SHARED PROGRAM BETWEEN INSTITUTIONS. SO I FELT THIS WAS A VERY GOOD APPLICATION AND GAVE IT HIGH SCORES ON RESPONSIVENESS. I GAVE 12 OUT OF 15. I THINK, YOU KNOW, NOBODY IS PERFECT. SO MY OVERALL TOTAL WAS 98. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AS A QUESTION FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC, WHO MAY NOT KNOW WHAT THE MAXIMUM SCORES ARE IN HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE AND TIMELINE AND MILESTONES, IF YOU COULD INDICATE FOR THE PUBLIC THE MAXIMUM POINTS IN THOSE CATEGORIES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, BOB. SO JUST TO GO THROUGH THIS, THE MAXIMUM FOR FEASIBILITY IS 15, THE MAXIMUM FOR COST IS 20, THE MAXIMUM FOR TIMELINES AND MILESTONES IS 20, 20 FOR INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, 10 FOR HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE, 15 FOR RESPONSIVENESS. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: RIGHT. I SAID IT WRONG. I GIVE 13 OUT OF 15 FOR RESPONSIVENESS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IF I CAN ASK ANOTHER QUESTION. I WAS UNABLE TO BE AT THE FIRST PART OF THE LAST SESSION OF THIS COMMITTEE. IS MATCHING FUNDS CONSIDERED UNDER INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT OR COSTS? WHERE WAS THE -- WHAT WAS THE CONCLUSION? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BOB, I THINK THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, UNDER INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, NOT UNDER COST. I THINK THERE WAS A KIND OF CONSENSUS OF THE MEMBERS THAT THAT'S HOW WE SHOULD CONSIDER THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING, BUT I WAS JUST TRYING TO GET A REAFFIRMATION OF THAT POINT. | ||||||||
| AND IN TERMS OF THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, IN TERMS OF MATCHING FUNDS, WHAT WAS THE PERCENTAGE OF MATCHING FUNDS THAT THIS INSTITUTION WAS CONTRIBUTING? AND I'D ALSO ASK, SINCE THEY'VE CONSTRUCTED A WHOLE NEW FACILITY, IS THERE ANY EVALUATION BY THE STAFF OF WHAT THE COST IS OF THAT FACILITY AND ITS CONTRIBUTION TO THE MISSION? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THE INSTITUTIONAL -- THE STAFF SYNOPSIS OR THE PROJECT SYNOPSIS DISPLAYS THE BUDGET SUMMARY AND ALSO INDICATES THE PERCENTAGE THAT THE MATCHING AMOUNT REPRESENTS. FOR INSTANCE, ON THIS ONE THE PRIOR EXPENDITURE MATCH, WHICH BASICALLY RELATES TO ALTERATIONS, IS 421,621. WE'VE IDENTIFIED THAT PERCENTAGE. WE DON'T HAVE A BASIS TO JUDGE HOW THEY HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE LARGER ISSUE OF CIRM RESEARCH. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I SAW THE $400,000 NUMBER. WHERE DOES THE PERCENTAGE APPEAR? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: AT THE BOTTOM OF THE STAFF SYNOPSIS, BOB. SHOULD BE IN THERE. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: IT REPRESENTS 45 PERCENT OF THE REQUESTED FUNDS. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION, MR. CHAIRMAN, THE AMOUNT REQUESTED FOR EQUIPMENT, 943,933, RELATED TO THE 1560 ASSIGNABLE SQUARE FEET THAT'S INVOLVED IN THE LAB, $605 PER ASSIGNABLE SQUARE FOOT FOR EQUIPMENT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU. ED, DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER TO ADD TO THE REVIEW? | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I PREFER NOT MAKING MY SCORES PUBLIC. I PUBLISHED THEM ON THE INTERNET; HOWEVER -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YOU SAID YOU PREFER TO OR NOT TO? | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: MY POINTS OF VIEW ARE STRICTLY OF A REAL ESTATE POINT OF VIEW. AND THIS APPLICATION, THE PHYSICAL PLANT IS COMPLETED. SO THE LEAST AMOUNT OF MONEY IS GOING INTO REAL ESTATE AND THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF MONEY INTO MEDICAL EQUIPMENT AND TECHNIQUES. I SLIGHTLY DOWNGRADED FROM THE MAXIMUM TWO AREAS. ONE, TIMELINES AND MILESTONES. I FEEL SINCE THE PLANT IS COMPLETED AND THEY'RE IN PROCESS, THEY COULD BE DOING THIS A LITTLE FASTER. AND THEIR RESPONSIVENESS WAS SLIGHTLY DOWNGRADED, BUT IT WAS A VERY HIGH SCORE FOR ME, AND I STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT IT BE GRADED THAT WAY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, ED. DO MEMBERS HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE PRIMARY OR SECONDARY REVIEWER? IF NOT, ANY QUESTIONS? THEN I'D ASK EVERYONE TO PUT THEIR PRELIMINARY SCORE DOWN IN THEIR SCORE BOOK FOR APPLICATION 502. AND I'LL GIVE EVERYONE A MINUTE TO DO THAT, AND THEN RICK IS GOING TO TELL US WHICH IS THE NEXT APPLICATION WE'RE GOING TO REVIEW. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: MR. CHAIRMAN, AT THIS TIME I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU COULD GO BACK TO THE ORDER OF REVIEW THAT WE HAD INDICATED WITH CL-1-00503-1 BEING THE NEXT ITEM. MEMBER LANSING IS AVAILABLE BY TELEPHONE AS SHE HAS BEEN ASSIGNED AS SECONDARY REVIEWER FOR THIS. THE CHAIRMAN IS THE PRIMARY REVIEWER AND THERE ARE NO OTHER RECUSALS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, RICK. ARE THE MEMBERS COMPLETE WITH THEIR PRELIMINARY SCORING, OR DO YOU NEED ANOTHER MINUTE? LET'S GO TO ANOTHER MINUTE BEFORE WE DIG INTO 503. | ||||||||
| MS. LANSING: HELLO. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SHERRY, WE DO HEAR YOU. | ||||||||
| MS. LANSING: I CAN BARELY HEAR YOU, SO I'M GOING TO CALL IN AGAIN. ACTUALLY NOW, IF YOU SPEAK LOUD, I CAN HEAR YOU. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WE'LL TRY TO TALK A LITTLE MORE CLOSELY TO THE MICROPHONE. HOW DOES THAT SOUND, SHERRY? | ||||||||
| MS. LANSING: THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. SO I WILL START. I AM THE PRIMARY REVIEWER FOR APPLICATION 503, SO I'LL GO AHEAD. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE RICK DO THE STAFF SYNOPSIS FIRST. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: ON CL-1-00503-1, THE REQUEST IS FOR 1,981,068 IN CIRM FUNDING. THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT. THE PROPOSAL ALSO HAS AN ELEMENT IN THE STAFF ANALYSIS THAT FALLS UNDER THIS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED POLICY OF HANDLING THESE AS IF THEY ARE REMEDIED. | ||||||||
| IN THIS CASE THE PROPOSAL, AS IDENTIFIED IN THE STAFF ANALYSIS, INCLUDED MATCHING CHARACTERISTICS -- INCLUDED FUNDING, RATHER, FOR INELIGIBLE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH FURNISHINGS AND RELOCATION COSTS THAT WERE NOT CONSISTENT WITH CIRM'S DEFINITION OF EQUIPMENT. SO THOSE FUNDS OF 57,525 WOULD NOT BE ALLOWABLE COSTS UNDER CIRM'S GUIDELINES FOR EQUIPMENT. | ||||||||
| THE OTHER ISSUE IS THAT THE RFA SPECIFIES THAT DESIGN FEES, ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, AND CONTINGENCIES SHOULD NOT EXCEED 25 PERCENT IN THE AGGREGATE FOR CIRM FUNDING. SO THERE'S 54,276 OF FUNDING INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSAL THAT RELATES TO THIS. | ||||||||
| AND FINALLY, SO IN OUR APPROACH TO THIS, WE WOULD, AS INDICATED IN THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION, PROPOSE THAT WE WOULD REDUCE THE GRANT AMOUNT, AND THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE FOR THE UNALLOWABLE COSTS FOR THESE IN THIS AMOUNT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I'D LIKE TO ASK MEMBERS IF WE COULD HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR APPLICATION 503-1, THAT CIRM SHOULD REDUCE ITS GRANT AMOUNT, AND APPLICANT PROVIDES INSTITUTIONAL FUNDS FOR THESE UNALLOWABLE EXPENSES. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IF I CAN ASK A QUESTION OF STAFF FIRST? IS THAT PERMISSIBLE, MR. CHAIRMAN? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES, PLEASE, BOB. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: RICK, I NOTICE ON THIS THAT THE MATCH IS A MILLION FOUR SEVENTY-ONE. IT APPEARS TO BE ABOUT 50 PERCENT. THAT'S SUBSTANTIALLY OVER THE MINIMUMS. IS IT ALSO POSSIBLE THAT IN THE MATCH THERE ARE QUALIFIED COSTS THAT ARE CONSIDERED, AND THEY NEED TO REORDER THEIR BUDGET JUST AS A QUESTION? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: YES, THAT IS CORRECT. HOWEVER, I THINK AT THIS POINT WE WOULD WANT TO JUST REMEDY THIS CONDITION AS OPPOSED TO START REORDERING OR ASKING FOR A NEW BUDGET. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: MY UNDERSTANDING IS FOR SIMPLICITY AND TO HAVE A CONSISTENT REMEDY, THAT WE, EVEN THOUGH THAT IS THE SITUATION, WE NEED TO BE EFFICIENT AND CONSISTENT AND UNIFORM IN OUR APPROACH. SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT THEY REMEDY THE COST IN THESE TWO CATEGORIES EITHER BY PUTTING UP MORE MONEY, THE APPLICANT PUTS MORE MONEY UP TO COVER THESE, OR THE CIRM WOULD REDUCE ITS GRANT BY THE AMOUNT IN THE ALTERNATIVE; IS THAT CORRECT? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: IT'S ACTUALLY THE SAME, SO WE WOULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF CIRM FUNDS FROM THESE PARTICULAR LINE ITEMS THAT REPRESENT THE INELIGIBLE COSTS, AND THEN THEY WOULD NEED TO PICK IT UP IN INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: IS YOUR MOTION THAT THIS WOULD BE INSTITUTED ACROSS THE BOARD FOR ALL PROPOSALS WHERE THIS APPLIES? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THAT IS CORRECT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SO I WILL MAKE THE MOTION THAT WHEN THIS CONDITION APPLIES, THAT THIS BE INSTITUTED ACROSS THE BOARD IN THOSE SITUATIONS SO WE HAVE A UNIFORM RESPONSE IN ALL CASES WHERE WE HAVE THIS TECHNICAL FINANCIAL ISSUE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: POINT OF ORDER TO THE CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER. AND THAT IS PER MR. KLEIN'S MOTION, AS A POLICY MATTER, THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DEAL WITH. | ||||||||
| MS. LANSING: PLEASE TALK LOUDER. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: AS A POLICY MATTER, THOUGH, I STILL THINK, AND PERHAPS WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT, BUT IT'S ADVISABLE THAT WE FOR EACH APPLICATION STATE ON THE RECORD WHAT THE REMEDY IS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE WILL HAVE A MOTION ON EACH APPLICATION, SO WE WILL KNOW EXACTLY WHEN WE'RE APPLYING IT. AND THERE WILL BE A SEPARATE VOTE THAT HAS TO CARRY OR NOT CARRY ON EACH APPLICATION. AS A POLICY MATTER, I'M STATING THAT THIS IS INTENDED THAT THIS BE STATED IN A WAY THAT IT CAN BE APPLIED UNIFORMLY. BUT IT IS ONLY TO BE VOTED ON IN THIS CASE ON THIS APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: AT THE DISCRETION OF THE WORKING GROUP. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AT THE DISCRETION OF THE WORKING GROUP. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I'LL SECOND THAT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: TAMAR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT? | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENT. I THINK BOB'S GOT IT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO THEN WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: SECOND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WE HAVE IT SECONDED BY JANET WRIGHT. SO CAN WE GO AHEAD AND PROCEED WITH DISCUSSION? DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION WITH THIS ITEM? | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: COULD YOU RESTATE THE MOTION? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: LET ME RESTATE THE MOTION. SO THE MOTION IS THAT WHERE WE HAVE THE INELIGIBLE COSTS IN THIS CASE FOR EXCEEDING THE DESIGN FEE ADMINISTRATION CONTINGENCY CATEGORY AND EXCEEDING -- AND HAVING INELIGIBLE COSTS IN THE BUDGET FOR RELOCATION OR SIMILAR ITEMS, THAT THE CIRM WILL REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF THE GRANT BY THE AMOUNT OF INELIGIBLE COST THAT WE'VE EXCEEDED THE BUDGET, SPECIFICALLY IN THIS GRANT, BY THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED BY STAFF. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THERE WAS A SECOND FROM DR. WRIGHT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO WE HAVE A SECOND FROM -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IF THIS IS APPROVED, THEN WE WOULD SCORE THIS GRANT AS IF THOSE CONDITIONS ARE FULLY REMEDIED. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THAT'S CORRECT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION POINTS ON -- | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I'D ALSO LIKE TO COMMENT THAT WITHIN THE STAFF ANALYSIS WHERE WE HAD IDENTIFIED ISSUES, THE OTHER ISSUE THAT WAS IDENTIFIED WAS HOW WILL THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP RESOLVE THE INCONSISTENT BUDGETS PRESENTED IN THE PROPOSAL? AND THERE IS NO REMEDY FOR THAT BECAUSE IT IS A POLICY DECISION FOR YOU TO CONSIDER AS YOU REVIEW. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, RICK. SO ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS? IF NOT, THEN I'D LIKE TO HAVE A VOTE NOW ON THIS MOTION. CALL THE ROLL. | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: YOU CAN ACTUALLY JUST DO THIS BY A VOICE VOTE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ALL IN FAVOR SAY YES. ANY OPPOSED? THEN I THINK IT'S UNANIMOUS, AND IT'S PASSED. SO IT WILL BE SO RECORDED THAT WE WILL CONSIDER THIS APPLICATION ACCEPTING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION HOW TO DEAL WITH THESE FINANCIAL ISSUES. OKAY. | ||||||||
| SO NOW I AM THE PRIMARY REVIEWER FOR APPLICATION 503-1, AND I'M GOING TO PROCEED WITH THAT NOW. | ||||||||
| SO IN TERMS OF FEASIBILITY, THE PROJECT SEEMED QUITE FEASIBLE. IT WAS A FAIRLY COMPLICATED PROJECT, BUT THERE WERE NO MAJOR ISSUES THAT I NOTED IN THE INFORMATION. THEY WOULD BE CREATING A 3,000 SQUARE FOOT ASSIGNABLE NONLABORATORY SPACE TO PROVIDE SPACE FOR A LABORATORY RESEARCH AND RELATED SUPPORT, INCLUDING TISSUE CULTURE, SHARED EQUIPMENT, AND OFFICE SPACE. | ||||||||
| THE COST SEEMED TO BE VERY HIGH COMPARED TO THE OTHER REVIEWED GRANT APPLICATIONS. THERE WAS SOME INCONSISTENT INFORMATION REGARDING THE COSTS AS NOTED BY STAFF. SO I DID HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE COST ON THIS APPLICATION, ESPECIALLY THAT WE HAD SOME INCONSISTENT BUDGETING. BUDGET SHOWED DIFFERENT NUMBERS FOR DIFFERENT ITEMS. | ||||||||
| IN TERMS OF THE TIMELINESS AND MILESTONES, THE OVERALL SCHEDULE SEEMED SOMEWHAT LONG CONSIDERING ALL ASPECTS OF THE SCHEDULE. THE TOTAL PROJECT WAS APPROXIMATELY 21 MONTHS. | ||||||||
| THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT SEEMED QUITE EXCELLENT. THEY MET THE MATCH. THEY WELL EXCEEDED THE MATCH ON THIS ITEM. IT LOOKED LIKE THERE WAS A 150-PERCENT MATCH; IS THAT CORRECT, RICK? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES. 150. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO THIS WAS AN AREA THAT I FELT VERY POSITIVELY ABOUT. | ||||||||
| THE HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE SEEMED QUITE GOOD TO EXCELLENT. THERE WERE NO CONCERNS THAT I HAD IN THE APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| AND THE RESPONSIVENESS SEEMED TO BE GOOD AS WELL. VERY GOOD. SO I HAD NO CONCERNS WITH RESPONSIVENESS. | ||||||||
| SO I'D LIKE TO HAVE SHERRY LANSING DO THE SECONDARY REVIEW NOW. | ||||||||
| MS. LANSING: I TALKED OVER THIS WITH STAFF BECAUSE I DID NOT HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE AND THE ABILITY TO REVIEW THIS BY MYSELF. I, AFTER TALKING OVER IT WITH STAFF, FELT VERY, VERY, VERY COMFORTABLE WITH EVERYTHING THAT STAFF WAS RECOMMENDING, SO I SUPPORT IT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SHERRY, COULD YOU SPEAK UP, PLEASE? | ||||||||
| MS. LANSING: WHAT I SAID IS I DID NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THIS ALONE BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH OF A BACKGROUND IN ALL OF THESE AREAS. SO I TALKED TO STAFF ABOUT THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS IN GREAT DETAIL. AFTER I TALKED TO RICK, IN PARTICULAR, I FELT VERY, VERY COMFORTABLE WITH EVERYTHING THAT THEY ARE RECOMMENDING AND SAYING. AND SO I AGREE WITH IT TOTALLY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU, SHERRY. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE MEMBERS FOR EITHER THE PRIMARY OR SECONDARY REVIEWER? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: CAN I ASK STAFF A QUESTION? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: PLEASE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: RICK, WITH THE INCONSISTENT BUDGETS THAT YOU REFERENCED, ARE WE GOING TO JUST SPECIFY THAT ONE SET OF NUMBERS IS GOING TO BE TAKEN AS THE REPRESENTED SET OF NUMBERS SO THAT WE CAN ELIMINATE THIS INCONSISTENCY? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: AGAIN, BOB -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WHAT IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION ON THIS ITEM? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THANK YOU. I DID THIS REVIEW AS WELL, SO ALLOW ME TO SPEAK TO THIS. WHAT I DID IN THE REVIEW, AS STATED, I USED THE LAST BUDGET, THE BUDGET ON THE BACK END OF THIS APPLICATION, AS A GUIDE AS WELL AS THE REQUIRED B.3 BUDGET AND ACTUALLY DISREGARDED THE OTHERS BECAUSE IT JUST WOULDN'T HAVE MADE FOR A VALUABLE ANALYSIS. I THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO. | ||||||||
| THERE IS NO REMEDY TO THIS UNLESS WE WENT BACK, OF COURSE, AND ASKED FOR A REFRAMING OF THE APPLICATION. SO I THINK THAT SHOULD BE CERTAINLY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE VOTING, THAT THERE WAS DIFFICULTIES IN IDENTIFYING EXACTLY WHAT THE INSTITUTION WAS ASKING FOR. | ||||||||
| I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO NOTE, AND I WANTED TO THANK MEMBER LANSING FOR TAKING STAFF'S ANALYSIS, THAT ONE OF THE REASONS THAT THE MATCH IS SO HIGH IS THIS IS A VERY COMPLEX RENOVATION, WHICH IS ALSO THE REASON FOR THE 21 MONTHS. THERE'S A PIECE OF THIS THAT'S PROBABLY SEISMIC AS WELL. SO I THINK THAT THAT'S IMPORTANT, AND I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT, THAT THAT IS INFLUENCING THE TIMEFRAME. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: BUT WE DO HAVE AN EFFECTIVE BUDGET. WE'RE TAKING THE BUDGET AS YOU REFERENCED IT SPECIFICALLY AND ELIMINATING THE INCONSISTENCY BY DOING SO. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: AS MUCH POSSIBLE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK YOUR POINT ABOUT THE LEVEL OF THE MATCH IS VERY SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE, ALTHOUGH IT'S COSTLY, THIS SO FAR EXCEEDS THE OTHER MATCHES THAT WE'RE SEEING INSTITUTIONALLY, THAT ANY COST EFFECT OF THIS RENOVATION IS FAR EXCEEDED IN THE OFFSET OF THE TREMENDOUS AMOUNT IN THE MATCH. SO IT IS A TREMENDOUS CONTRIBUTION. AS SAID BEFORE, THEY SHOULD BE COMMENDED ON THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT THAT THEY HAVE BROUGHT. AND EFFECTIVELY IN THE VALUE FOR THE TAXPAYERS AND RESEARCH, IT GETS A LOT OF VALUE FOR OUR DOLLARS BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE MATCH. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, BOB. I WOULD CONCUR ABOUT THE MATCH, AND THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT WAS EXCELLENT. THE VICE CHAIR WOULD LIKE TO SAY A FEW WORDS, BUT I JUST WANT TO COMMENT TO LORI'S COMMENTS ABOUT THE SCHEDULE. I DO AGREE THAT THIS WAS A FAIRLY COMPLICATED PROJECT, ALTHOUGH, AGAIN, I THOUGHT THE SCHEDULE WAS SOMEWHAT EXTENDED EVEN GIVEN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. VICE CHAIR. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I THINK WHAT MR. KLEIN HAS SHARED WITH THE WORKING GROUP ARE HIS THOUGHTS, AND THEY'RE VALUABLE BECAUSE WE'RE ALL INTERESTED IN HOW EACH ONE OF US ARE THINKING. BUT IT'S GOING TO BE UP TO EACH ONE OF US, BASED ON OUR OWN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS, TO PROVIDE A SCORE. AS STAFF HAS PRESENTED, SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT ARISE WITH EACH APPLICATION ARE EASILY REMEDIABLE, IF THAT'S A WORD. WE COULD JUST PASS A MOTION AND DEAL WITH IT THAT WAY WHILE OTHERS ARE NOT. | ||||||||
| AS NOTED FOR THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION, THERE ARE ISSUES WITH THE 54,000, WITH THEIR BUDGET. IT EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT THAT'S ALLOWED UNDER THE RFA. ON ITS FACE IT EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT THAT IT'S ALLOWED UNDER THE RFA. SO FOR MY OWN ANALYSIS, THAT WILL HAVE AN IMPACT ON COST. THAT WILL HAVE AN IMPACT ON HOW I ASSIGN THE SCORE IN THE COST CATEGORY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ARE THERE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE PRIMARY OR SECONDARY REVIEWER? | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: IN TERMS OF TIMELINES, ARE WE DEALING WITH SCORING IT FOR THE TIMELINE FOR THE PROJECT AS THEY PROPOSE IT, OR ARE WE MORE CONCERNED WITH PROVIDING MONEY TO PEOPLE THAT HAVE MUCH SHORTER TIMELINES THAT ARE ABLE TO PERFORM FASTER? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: LORI, COULD YOU PLEASE ADDRESS. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THERE IS, IN FACT, NO SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT IN THE ACT. AND I WOULD ASK JAMES TO CITE THE ACT IN TERMS OF THE IMMEDIACY OF THE FACILITIES, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THAT'S A POLICY ISSUE AND SHOULD BE REFLECTED IN YOUR SCORING. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: BOB, COULD I ASK YOUR OPINION ABOUT THE SUBJECT? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I WAS ACTUALLY READING ONE OF THESE TECHNICAL PAGES ON THE CONSTRUCTION COMPLEXITY. COULD YOU RESTATE IT, PLEASE? | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I WAS WONDERING SHOULD WE BE CONCERNED WITH NOT NECESSARILY THE TIMELINE IN WHICH THEY'RE DOING THEIR PROJECT, OR DO WE HAVE A FINITE AMOUNT OF MONEY, AND SHOULD WE PROVIDE MORE WEIGHT TO THOSE PEOPLE THAT CAN COMPLETE THEIR PROJECT FASTER? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WELL, I THINK -- | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: THEY'RE FURTHER ALONG IN THE PROCESS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: EXCELLENT QUESTION. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK EVERY MEMBER NEEDS TO COME TO THEIR OWN CONCLUSION ON THAT. BUT FROM MY INDIVIDUAL PERSPECTIVE, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WITH THE SHARED FACILITIES, WE APPEAR TO HAVE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF FUNDING TO REACH ESSENTIALLY ALL OF THE QUALITY PROJECTS TO THE EXTENT THIS COMMITTEE DEEMS THEM QUALITY. IN THE MAJOR FACILITIES GRANT, THAT CAN BE A VERY DIFFERENT SITUATION. BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IF WE HAVE A COMPLEX PROJECT AND THEY APPEAR TO BE EXECUTING IT PROPERLY, I PERSONALLY, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, WOULD SCORE THEM ON WHETHER THEY'VE ACCOMPLISHED THE TASK FACING THEM IN AN APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF TIME BECAUSE PART OF OUR MISSION HERE IS TO EXPAND THE NUMBER OF FACILITIES IN THE STATE GIVEN APPROPRIATE QUALITY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT. YOU KNOW, IN MY EXPERIENCE WITH PROJECTS, THERE ARE THREE THINGS THAT TYPICALLY MATTER: COST, SCHEDULE, AND QUALITY. AND IT'S A VERY RARE PROJECT THAT GETS ALL THREE RIGHT. SO IF YOU PUSH ON ONE, USUALLY THERE'S AN EFFECT ON THE OTHER TWO. SO AS I SAID, YOU KNOW, AS THE PRIMARY REVIEW, I THOUGHT THE SCHEDULE WAS SOMEWHAT EXTENDED, BUT, YES, A COMPLICATED PROJECT. DEBORAH. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: JAMES, I WAS WONDERING IF THIS ADDRESSES ED'S POINT. IN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP UNDER PROP 71, AND I GET THESE NUMBERS ALL WRONG BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY A'S, 1S, B'S, 2S. BUT IT DOES SAY PRIORITY FOR APPLICATIONS THAT PROVIDE FOR FACILITIES THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH NO MORE THAN TWO YEARS AFTER THE GRANT AWARD. SO IS THAT BASICALLY THE TIMEFRAME? | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: RIGHT. THAT'S ONE OF THE CRITERIA BY WHICH YOU ARE MEANT TO EVALUATE APPLICATIONS. AND IT'S NOT AN ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT. IT'S A PRIORITY FOR APPLICATIONS THAT PROVIDE FOR A FACILITY TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN THAT TIMEFRAME. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: SO PRESUMABLY THE FASTER THAT THAT IS DONE, THE MORE PRIORITY. THERE'S A WEIGHTED. | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: CORRECT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WE HAVE A QUESTION FROM JANET WRIGHT. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: IT'S ACTUALLY JUST A COMMENT. IN READING THROUGH THE PROPOSAL, I WAS NEITHER PRIMARY NOR SECONDARY ON THIS ONE. I WAS A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT THEY DESCRIBE, WELL, THE SPACE BEING AVAILABLE FOR 28 PI'S, ALL BASED AT THE HOST INSTITUTION BECAUSE I DO THINK OF THESE SHARED LABS AS OPPORTUNITIES TO BRING ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATORS INTO THE FIELD AND SHARE THE RESOURCES. BUT THEY SPECIFICALLY CALL OUT IN THE PUBLIC ABSTRACT AND IN THE BODY OF THE PROPOSAL THAT THEY'VE ALREADY DEVELOPED RELATIONSHIPS WITH INSTITUTIONS, THREE OF THEM THAT THEY MENTION, IN ORDER TO BRING OTHER FOLKS IN. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YOU KNOW, I'D LIKE TO RESPOND TO THIS BRIEFLY, AND THEN I WANT TO HAVE LORI HOFFMAN ALSO RESPOND. THAT WAS AN EXCELLENT POINT, JANET. I DID NOTICE CERTAIN QUESTIONS I HAD ON THIS ISSUE WITH THIS APPLICATION AS WELL AS OTHER APPLICATIONS IN TERMS OF THE PI QUESTION. SO I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REVIEW IN GREATER DETAIL UNDER THE VICE CHAIR'S DIRECTION ON THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW, BUT I'M GOING TO ALLOW LORI HOFFMAN TO RESPOND. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: WELL, IN FACT, THE CHAIRMAN IS CORRECT. SO WHAT WE WERE FINDING AS WE WERE REVIEWING ALL OF THEM, THAT MANY OF THE HOST -- MANY OF THE APPLICANTS WERE PROPOSING THAT HOST INSTITUTION PI NUMBER AS AN EXPANDED CAPACITY. AND SO IN THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW, YOU WILL SEE BOTH NUMBERS, CURRENTLY WHAT ARE CIRM-FUNDED PI'S AT THESE PARTICULAR INSTITUTIONS, WHAT THE APPLICANT IS ASSUMING WILL BE THEN THEIR USE INSIDE, AND THERE WILL BE ALSO A REQUIREMENT THAT THESE SHARED LABS BE SHARED AND THAT THERE BE SOME RECHARGE MECHANISM IN ORDER TO OPEN UP THOSE LABS TO OTHER APPLICANTS OR OTHER PI'S THAT WILL BE DOING THIS WORK AND NEEDING NIH-FREE SPACE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BY ANY OF THE MEMBERS? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IS IT CORRECT THAT, IN FACT, ON EACH OF THESE INSTITUTIONS, IN ORDER IN THIS PART OF THE REVIEW TO MAKE IT VERY DIRECT, THAT YOU'VE ONLY SHOWN THE PI'S RELATED TO THAT INSTITUTION, AS YOU'RE SAYING; BUT AS DR. WRIGHT POINTS OUT, ALL OF THESE INSTITUTIONS CLAIM THAT THEY WERE GOING TO SERVICE OTHER INSTITUTIONS AND PROVIDE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF BACKUP WHICH WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS IN THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW. BUT CONSISTENTLY WE'LL SEE, AS WE GO DOWN THE LIST, THAT THE NUMBER OF PI'S REFERENCED IN THE SUMMARIES REFERENCES THE NUMBER OF PI'S AT THE INSTITUTION. IS THAT A CORRECT STATEMENT? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: EACH APPLICATION HAS DEALT WITH THIS IN A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT MANNER. IN MANY CASES YOU WILL SEE THAT AN APPLICANT WILL STATE THAT THERE'S CERTAINLY A LARGER NUMBER OF PI'S THAT COULD USE THE FACILITY DEPENDING ON HOW MANY HOURS IN THE DAY THAT IT'S OPEN OR DAYS OF THE WEEK. AND BECAUSE WE DID NOT PROVIDE SPECIFIC GUIDANCE AND AN EFFORT TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION TO THE WORKING GROUP IN A CONSISTENT MANNER, WE CHOSE TO SHOW THE HOST INSTITUTION'S PI'S FOR THIS EXPANDED CAPACITY ISSUE AS WELL AS THEN IN PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW SHOW YOU WHAT THE APPLICANT CURRENTLY HAS AS CIRM-FUNDED PI'S. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, JANET? ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE TECHNICAL REVIEW OF APPLICATION 503-1? IF NOT, I'D LIKE TO HAVE EVERYONE WRITE DOWN THEIR PRELIMINARY SCORE. I'VE GIVE EVERYONE A MOMENT. | ||||||||
| RICK, WOULD APPLICATION 509-1 BE THE NEXT APPLICATION TO BE CONSIDERED? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ARE THERE ANY FINANCIAL ISSUES THAT STAFF HAS RECOMMENDATIONS ON THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES, THERE ARE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WHY DON'T WE JUST GIVE MEMBERS ANOTHER MINUTE BEFORE WE GO FURTHER. 509-1. THANK YOU. ARE THE MEMBERS COMPLETE WITH THEIR SCORING? OKAY. YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THE NEXT ITEM WOULD BE ITEM CL-1-00509-1. THE PRIMARY REVIEWER IS MEMBER HYSEN, SECONDARY REVIEWER IS MEMBER LANSING. | ||||||||
| (NO RECUSALS ON PROPOSAL 509-1.) | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A TOTAL OF $919,830 IN CIRM FUNDING. IT IS ALL FOR A SHARED LABORATORY. THERE IS NOT A TECHNIQUES COURSE PROPOSED. THE OPTIONAL TECHNIQUES COURSE IS NOT PROPOSED HERE. | ||||||||
| THE ONE FINANCIAL ITEM THAT WE CAN RESOLVE HERE UNDER YOUR PRIOR ARRANGEMENT IS THAT THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES AN AMOUNT BUDGETED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, DESIGN, AND CONTINGENCY THAT EXCEEDS THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED IN THE RFA BY $25,204. AND CONSISTENT WITH YOUR PREVIOUS ACTIONS, THAT WOULD BE RESOLVED, AS YOU HAD STATED ON THE PREVIOUS ITEM, BY REDUCING THE CIRM FUNDING AND COMMUNICATING THAT TO THE APPLICANT TO HANDLE THAT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO, RICK, IS THAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO HAVE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT ON THIS APPLICATION? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: A MOTION AND A VOICE VOTE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON APPLICATION 509-1 TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THAT CIRM SHOULD REDUCE ITS GRANT AMOUNT AND THE APPLICANT PROVIDES INSTITUTIONAL FUNDS FOR THESE UNALLOWABLE EXPENSES? DO WE HAVE A MOTION? | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: SO MOVED. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO JANET WRIGHT IS THE MOTION. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: SECOND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: AND MARCY FEIT IS THE SECOND. CAN WE HAVE A VOTE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. IT'S UNANIMOUS THAT WE'RE ACCEPTING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON THE FINANCIAL ISSUES ON APPLICATION 509. | ||||||||
| DEBORAH, IF YOU COULD PLEASE DO THE PRIMARY REVIEW. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: GOOD MORNING. SHERRY, CAN YOU HEAR ME? | ||||||||
| MS. LANSING: YES. I HEAR YOU FINE. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: THIS APPLICATION I SCORED IN THE MID TO MID HIGH RANGE OF THE GROUP THAT I HAD. IT WAS A PRETTY SOLID APPLICATION. THIS PARTICULAR SPACE IS A 900 SQUARE FOOT SPACE ASSIGNABLE AREA OF A MEDIUM SIZE LAB, 1960 IN TOTAL. THE PER-SQUARE-FOOT COST IN THE COLUMN YOU WILL SEE IS HIGH, BUT THAT'S NOT ATYPICAL OF SMALL SPACE. YOU DON'T TEND TO LEVERAGE THE ECONOMIES OF SCALE, SO YOUR SMALL SPACES TEND TO BE HIGHER PER SQUARE FOOT. BECAUSE IT'S ONLY 900 SQUARE FEET, YOU WILL SEE IN ONE OF YOUR SPREADSHEETS THAT THE COST PER SQUARE FOOT IS RELATIVELY HIGH, BUT, AGAIN, NOT LEVERAGING ECONOMIES OF SCALE, THAT'S NOT ATYPICAL. SO I DIDN'T FIND THAT PROBLEMATIC. | ||||||||
| SO FROM A FEASIBILITY STANDPOINT, I FELT THAT THEY WERE IN GOOD SHAPE. THIS IS JUST AN UPGRADE OF AN EXISTING FACILITY, AND THEY HAVE EXISTING MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, AND PLUMBING SYSTEMS IN PLACE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO EXPAND ONTO. SO IT SEEMED THAT THE BASIC INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WOULD BE NEEDED WOULD BE IN PLACE, BUT THERE ARE SOME MODIFICATIONS TO MAKE IT SPECIFIC TO STEM CELL USE. SO I FELT THAT THERE WAS NOTHING REALLY PROHIBITING THEM FROM PROCEEDING IN A TIMELY FASHION. THEY DO RECOGNIZE SOME OF THE IMPEDIMENTS, SUCH AS SECURING PERMIT AND REVIEW APPROVALS FROM THE NECESSARY ENTITIES, SO THEY DID TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT. I GAVE THEM A SCORE IN THE MIDRANGE -- ACTUALLY IN THE HIGH RANGE. WE'RE NOT GIVING OUR SCORES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE A NUMERICAL SCORE. YOU SHOULD GIVE IT SOME INDICATION OF, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT WAS AVERAGE, ABOVE AVERAGE, GOOD, EXCELLENT, OR BELOW AVERAGE OR POOR. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: IN THE FEASIBILITY RANGE, WE HAVE THREE RANGES, LOW, AVERAGE, AND HIGH, AND I GAVE THEM -- I PUT THEM IN THE HIGH CATEGORY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WOULD THAT BE GOOD OR EXCELLENT? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: WELL, I THINK THEY'RE ALL SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. IN THIS CASE IT WOULD BE EXCELLENT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: AGAIN, I MENTIONED THE COST. I FEEL THAT, CONSIDERING THE AMOUNT OF WORK, THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF WORK TO MAKE IT SPECIFIC TO STEM CELL. I FELT IT WAS VERY REASONABLE AND IN KEEPING WITH TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS. | ||||||||
| I DID NOTE, HOWEVER, THE DESIGN FEES OVERAGES, AND I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. I'M GLAD THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE ONE COMMON REMEDY BECAUSE I NOTICED THROUGHOUT MY REVIEW THAT THERE'S SORT OF A -- I THINK THERE'S SOME APPLES AND ORANGES IN THE DESIGN ADMINISTRATIVE FEES. I THINK SOME THINGS ARE INCLUDED, MAYBE SOME THINGS AREN'T. IT'D BE NICE TO HAVE A TEMPLATE THAT THEY CAN FOLLOW SO THAT THEY'RE ALL SUBMITTING THE SAME INFORMATION. | ||||||||
| TIMELINE AND MILESTONES, I THINK IT'S A PRETTY REASONABLE CONSTRUCTION. THEY'RE AT THE SCHEMATIC STAGE RIGHT NOW, SO THEY STILL HAVE TO PROCEED WITH PRELIMINARY PLANS AND WORKING DRAWINGS WHICH THEY ANTICIPATE TAKING OVER EIGHT MONTHS. THE CONSTRUCTION TIME IS ACTUALLY FAIRLY SMALL. IT'S ABOUT TWO AND A HALF MONTHS. THEY EXPECT AN OPERATIONAL START OF JULY 1ST. I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO KNOW IN EACH CASE. I'D REALLY LIKE TO KNOW OPERATIONALLY WHEN EACH OF THESE ENTITIES IS GOING TO START BECAUSE I THINK, FOR ME, WE DO WANT TO LOOK AT PRIORITY FOR GETTING THIS BALL ROLLING. I FELT THAT THAT WAS ALL FAIRLY REASONABLE. | ||||||||
| IN THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, THEY DID EXCEED THE 20-PERCENT MINIMUM BY -- I THINK THEY'RE AT 25 PERCENT. SO I FELT THAT WAS FAIRLY GOOD. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: COULD WE JUST GO BACK TO SCHEDULE? I HAD A QUESTION. SO YOU'RE SAYING IT'S COMPLETION JULY 2008. SO OVERALL SCHEDULE ABOUT A YEAR, CORRECT? HOW ARE YOU CLASSIFYING THAT SCHEDULE? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: LOOKING AT THEIR TIMEFRAMES. MOST OF THESE GROUPS APPEAR TO BE STARTING UPON GRANT AWARD. THERE'S A FEW THAT APPEAR TO GET THE BALL ROLLING IN ADVANCE IN ANTICIPATION OF BEING FUNDED. AND SO THE ONES THAT ARE STARTING, I THINK THE EXPECTATION IS AN AWARD OF JULY OF '07; IS THAT TRUE, RICK? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: IF WE MAKE IT TO THE JUNE ICOC AND BY THE TIME WE COMPLETE DUE DILIGENCE ON THESE, BUT I THINK THAT'S REASONABLE. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: OKAY. I THINK THIS ONE DID ANTICIPATE -- I THINK MOST OF THEM ANTICIPATED A JULY 1ST START DATE. AND SO THIS WOULD BE ONE YEAR IN TOTAL FROM TAKING SCHEMATICS THROUGH THE PROCESS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO WOULD YOU CONSIDER THAT GOOD OR ABOVE AVERAGE OR EXCELLENT? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: I GAVE THAT EXCELLENT. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: DEBORAH, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE OSHPD REVIEW. DO YOU THINK THREE MONTHS IS REASONABLE? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: I HAVE A QUESTION THERE. IT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING WE NEED TO LOOK AT GOING FORWARD BECAUSE THEY ALL HAVE DIFFERENT PERMITTING ENTITIES. THIS IS OSHPD. THERE'S A STATE FIRE MARSHAL INVOLVED. SOME HAVE THE STATE ARCHITECT, SOME HAVE VARIOUS CITIES. AND WE ALL KNOW THAT THERE ARE BACKLOGS IN ALL OF THESE ENTITIES. AND WHAT WE DON'T KNOW IS WHAT THOSE BACKLOGS ARE. AND IT'S ALSO NOT FAIR TO TAKE A TYPICAL HISTORICAL LOOK AT THOSE BACKLOGS BECAUSE SOMETIMES, IF YOU MAKE IT AN URGENT PROJECT, IT SORT OF MOVES TO THE HEAD OF THE PILE. | ||||||||
| SO I ASSUME BECAUSE THEY HAVE DONE SOME RECENT PROJECTS IN THEIR HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE, THEY LISTED THREE PROJECTS, THAT THEY HAVE A GOOD HANDLE ON EXACTLY THE TIMEFRAME FOR OSHPD. THIS IS NOT A NEW INSTITUTION BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION. THEY HAVE WORKED WITH OSHPD IN THE PAST. I BASICALLY ASSUME THAT WHEN THEY LISTED THE TIMEFRAME, THAT THEY WERE PRETTY ON TARGET. IF ANYONE WERE TO SAY TWO WEEKS, THAT MIGHT BE QUESTIONABLE, BUT IT SEEMED THAT THIS WAS A REASONABLE TIMEFRAME. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: OKAY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: AGAIN, INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, THEY DID EXCEED THE MINIMUM MATCH. | ||||||||
| HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE, THEY CLEARLY HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY DO THIS WORK ON AN ONGOING BASIS. THIS IS A LARGE INSTITUTION. THEY LISTED ON THEIR SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION THAT THEY HAVE PERFORMED THREE SIMILAR PROJECTS. ONE HAD A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE ORDER PERCENTAGEWISE. YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT CAUSED THAT. IT MAY HAVE JUST BEEN AN UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCE, SO I WASN'T SURE HOW TO PARLAY THAT INTO MY SUBMITTAL. BUT I HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE A PROJECT TEAM IN PLACE. | ||||||||
| ONE THING THAT I NOTED ON THIS, AND I'D LIKE TO SEE IN THE FUTURE, IS THAT THEY DON'T LIST THE PROJECT DIRECTOR. AND IT'S ALWAYS NICE TO KNOW WHO THE PROJECT DIRECTOR IS AND WHAT HIS OR HER EXPERIENCE WITH THOSE PROJECTS HAS BEEN. I DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF MY SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION INCLUDED THAT, ALTHOUGH SOME IN THE APPLICATIONS DID SHOW THE PROJECT MANAGER AND DESCRIBED THAT MANAGER'S EXPERIENCE. SO I ACTUALLY RATED THEM IN THE AVERAGE SCORE BECAUSE OF THAT. EVEN THOUGH IT SEEMED THAT THEY INDICATED THEY'VE DONE THIS BEFORE, I DIDN'T HAVE A LOT OF THE ELEMENTS THAT I NEEDED TO LOOK AT TO VERIFY THAT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SHERRY, DO YOU -- | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: I STILL HAVE A COUPLE. AND THEN FINALLY, IN RESPONSIVE, I FELT THAT THEY GENERALLY MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFA. AND I'LL JUST SAY THIS FOR MOST OF MY APPLICATIONS. IT WASN'T CLEAR TO ME THAT THEY WERE MEETING THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENT AND THE CALIFORNIA PREFERENCE FOR SUPPLIES OF GOODS AND SERVICES. I KNOW THAT WE HAVE THAT IN THE GRANTS ADMINISTRATION POLICIES, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DO PROCEED WITH THAT, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE SO MUCH OF THEIR EQUIPMENT THAT THEY'RE USING FOR MATCHING FUNDS MIGHT BE PRIOR EXPENDITURES. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S DONE. I KNOW THAT YOU'VE MADE A MOTION FOR THAT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I'D LIKE HAVE RICK KELLER RESPOND TO THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: FOR THE STAFF REVIEWS, WE DID IDENTIFY THAT AS A RECURRING ISSUE. AND SO THE FINAL COMMENT UNDER THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP ISSUES IN ALL CASES IS THIS REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT WE BELIEVE THAT PREVAILING WAGE NEEDS TO BE CONFIRMED IN ALL CASES. AND PART OF THE GRANT ADMINISTRATION POLICY IN DECEMBER 7TH, I BELIEVE -- IT IS IN THE ACT IN TERMS OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPPLIER GOAL. SO WE AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY THAT THAT HAS TO BE PART OF THE -- WE AGREE THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE PART OF THE OVERALL GRANTS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: THE OTHER THING THAT I FELT WAS VERY RESPONSIVE, AND NOT ALL APPLICANTS DID IT, IS IDENTIFYING THE INSTITUTIONS THAT THEY WOULD SHARE THEIR LABORATORY SERVICES WITH. THEY ACTUALLY CALLED OUT A COUPLE OF NEIGHBORING INSTITUTIONS. WHAT I DON'T KNOW IS IF THEY'VE ACTUALLY DIALOGUED WITH THOSE INSTITUTIONS BECAUSE IF YOU -- I HAPPEN TO HAVE A LAW IN A CERTAIN GEOGRAPHICAL AREA, AND THEY ALL ARE CALLING UPON THE SAME INSTITUTIONS AS SHARING WITH THEM. SO I CAN'T IMAGINE THEY'RE GOING TO BE SHARING IN THREE OR FOUR INSTANCES. SO I THINK THAT'S JUST SOMETHING WE SHOULD KIND OF WATCH AS WE START TO NARROW IT DOWN IS THAT THERE ARE MANY IN A GEOGRAPHICAL AREA THAT ARE BEING PULLED IN A COUPLE DIRECTIONS. BUT IN THIS CASE THEY DID MENTION IT, AND I THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS A GOOD FIRST STEP. SO I GAVE THIS APPLICATION IN A MID HIGH RANGE. I WOULD DEFINITELY RECOMMEND IT FOR FUNDING. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU, DEBORAH. SHERRY, COULD YOU PLEASE ALSO DO THE SECONDARY REVIEW FOR APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| MS. LANSING: AGAIN, I CONSULTED WITH RICK KELLER. AND BASICALLY I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT WAS PRESENTED JUST NOW. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS BY THE MEMBERS FOR DEBORAH OR SHERRY ON THIS APPLICATION? BOB. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I JUST HAD A COMMENT THAT I THINK THAT DEBORAH'S POINT, THAT IT WOULD BE GOOD GOING FORWARD ON HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE IF WE ASK, WHEN THERE IS ANY MAJOR CHANGE ORDER EXPERIENCE ON PROJECTS, TO GIVE US, IN THE HISTORY THEY CITE, TO GIVE US A GOOD, THOUGHTFUL EXPLANATION OF HOW THAT OCCURRED. IT COULD BE OSHPD DRIVEN, SO COMPLETELY OUTSIDE OF ANYONE'S CONTROL. IT COULD BE AN INTERNAL ISSUE WITH THE CONTRACTOR. BUT JUST ENOUGH INFORMATION ON THE FUTURE ROUNDS THAT IT WILL HELP US UNDERSTAND THAT IF PRIOR PROJECTS THEY HAD SOME SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE CONTRACT AMOUNT DURING THE COURSE OF THE CONSTRUCTION, WE KNOW WHY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU, BOB. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SO I'D LIKE TO ASK MEMBERS TO PUT DOWN THEIR PRELIMINARY SCORE FOR THIS APPLICATION. I'M GOING TO CALL A THREE-MINUTE RECESS. | ||||||||
| (A RECESS WAS TAKEN.) | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IF EVERYONE COULD COME TO ORDER. IF MEMBERS COULD TAKE THEIR SEATS AND EVERYONE ELSE COME TO ORDER. THANK YOU. SO WE'LL BE REVIEWING APPLICATION NO. 517-1. RICK, IN THIS APPLICATION ARE THERE ANY FINANCIAL ISSUES THAT STAFF NEEDS TO ADDRESS? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THERE ARE TWO ISSUES THAT WE IDENTIFIED -- | ||||||||
| (PAUSE IN PROCEEDINGS.) | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ARE WE WAITING FOR SHERRY LANSING? | ||||||||
| MS. KING: YES, WE ARE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ACTUALLY I THINK WE WERE GOING TO HAVE RICK REVIEW THE FINANCIAL ISSUES ON THIS APPLICATION. IF IT'S OKAY WITH THE MEMBERS, I'D LIKE TO START. RICK, PLEASE PROCEED. | ||||||||
| (THERE ARE NO RECUSALS ON PROPOSAL 517-1.) | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: FOR THE APPLICATION 00517-1, WE HAD IDENTIFIED THREE ISSUES IN THE STAFF ANALYSIS THAT I'D POINT OUT TO YOU AT THIS TIME, TWO OF WHICH YOU MAY WISH TO CONSIDER UNDER YOUR PREVIOUS PROCEDURE. ONE IS THE FACT THIS THE APPLICANT DID NOT ADDRESS SUFFICIENTLY, IN OUR MINDS, THE COST OVERRUN REQUIREMENT THAT THE APPLICANTS BE FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE IN THE EVENT OF COST OVERRUNS. OUR REMEDY FOR THAT IS THAT WE WOULD INFORM THE APPLICANT THAT ANY COST ISSUES SHALL NOT RESULT IN REDUCED SCOPE AND WOULD BE THE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT. | ||||||||
| THE SECOND ISSUE DEALS WITH THE FACT THAT THE MATCHING FUNDS IN THIS PROPOSAL ARE REFERENCED AS BEING FROM A THIRD-PARTY SOURCE. AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO PROVIDE A MORE SECURE EXPRESSION OF GRANT MATCHING FUNDS BEING AVAILABLE THAN REFERENCING A THIRD PARTY. | ||||||||
| SO, AGAIN, UNDER YOUR PROCEDURE, WHERE WE SEE DIFFICULTY WITH THE MATCHING FUNDS, WE WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE REQUIRE THAT THE APPLICANT IDENTIFY AN APPROPRIATE SOURCE OF MATCHING FUNDS UNDER THIS APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| AND THEN, FINALLY, UNDER RESPONSIVENESS, THE STAFF ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THERE ARE ONLY THREE INSTITUTIONAL-BASED PI'S ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROPOSAL AND IS SOMETHING THAT, AGAIN, NEEDS TO BE BASICALLY ADDRESSED ON A POLICY BASIS. | ||||||||
| MS. LANSING: I'M BACK ON THE LINE. I LOST THE LINE. CAN YOU HEAR ME? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU. THANK YOU, SHERRY. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: SO I CAN SUMMARIZE THE PROJECT 517 AT THIS TIME IS A -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: EXCUSE ME. I THINK WE WANT TO TRY TO DEAL WITH THE FINANCIAL ISSUES FIRST. SO I'D LIKE TO HAVE SOMEONE PROPOSE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WITH MAKING -- I DON'T RECALL IF YOU STATED THIS, BUT THE INSTITUTION WILL GUARANTEE TO COVER ANY COST OVERRUNS AS WELL. AND DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: AS A POINT OF ORDER, THIS IS DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL SPEAKING, IF IT'S ACCEPTABLE TO YOU, CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE FOR THIS APPLICATION EACH RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF INDIVIDUALLY AND NOT HAVE IT IN ONE MOTION. SO I DON'T CARE WHICH ONE WE CONSIDER FIRST, IF THAT'S OKAY WITH YOU. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DULY NOTED, VICE CHAIR. WE'LL PROCEED ALONG THOSE LINES AND PROCEED WITH EACH MOTION SEPARATELY. SO THE FIRST MOTION, I'D LIKE TO HAVE A MEMBER PROPOSE THAT CIRM SHOULD REDUCE ITS GRANT AMOUNT -- I HAVE THAT WRONG. I'M SORRY. CIRM SHOULD INFORM APPLICANT THAT ANY COST OVERRUNS SHALL NOT RESULT IN REDUCED SCOPE, AND THE INSTITUTION WILL GUARANTEE TO COVER ANY COST OVERRUNS; IS THAT CORRECT, RICK, AS A FIRST MOTION? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I SECOND THAT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WHO'S PUTTING FORTH THAT MOTION? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: SO MOVED BY DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL. SECONDED BY MR. KLEIN. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IF WE COULD HAVE A VOICE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY YES. ANY OPPOSED? SO | ||||||||
| IT'S PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. | ||||||||
| SO ON THE SECOND MOTION REGARDING MATCHING FUNDS FROM A THIRD-PARTY SOURCE, THAT CIRM SHOULD REQUIRE THAT THE APPLICANT IDENTIFY AN APPROPRIATE SOURCE OF MATCHING FUNDS. AND, RICK, I WOULD ASSUME THAT WE WOULD WANT SOME KIND OF FURTHER CLARIFICATION OF A GUARANTEE AS WELL. SO IF WE COULD DULY NOTE THAT IN THE MOTION AS WELL, THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE SOURCE AND GUARANTEED. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: COULD I ASK. THE WORD "GUARANTEE" MAY BE DIFFICULT TO INTERPRET. MAYBE WE COULD SAY IDENTIFY WITH ADEQUATE ASSURANCE OF PERFORMANCE ON THE MATCH. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BOB, THAT SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT CLARIFICATION. THANK YOU. RICK, IF YOU COULD NOTE THAT IN THE STAFF COMMENTS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: ADEQUATE ASSURANCE OF PERFORMANCE UNDER THE MATCH. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO DOES SOMEONE -- CAN SOMEONE MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE MATCHING FUNDS FROM A THIRD-PARTY SOURCE? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I WOULD SECOND THE MOTION. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I'LL CONSIDER IT A MOTION. I'LL MAKE THE MOTION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BOB'S MADE THE MOTION. SECONDED BY THE VICE CHAIR. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I HAVE DISCUSSION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SORRY ABOUT THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THIS. I JUST -- THE MATCH IS WRITTEN INTO PROP 71. I DON'T EVEN BELIEVE THIS IS RESPONSIVE. I JUST TRIED TO LOOK UP THEIR STATED PARTNER ONLINE, AND THE WEBSITE FOR THE PALO ALTO INSTITUTE OF MOLECULAR MEDICINE DOESN'T COME UP. SO THERE IS NO INSTITUTIONAL MATCH, SO THIS IS NOT RESPONSIVE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. I SEE NO EVIDENCE OF AN INSTITUTIONAL MATCH. THE INSTITUTE THAT THEY'VE IDENTIFIED AS BEING THE MATCH, I'VE LOOKED IT UP ONLINE. THE PALO ALTO INSTITUTE FOR MOLECULAR MEDICINE -- | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE SHOULD LIMIT OUR REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION BASED ON THE MATERIALS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I THINK LOOKING AT THEIR APPLICATION, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THIS -- THIS IS NOT A CREDIBLE ASSERTION. SHOULD FURTHER FUNDING BE NECESSARY, WE WILL RAISE FURTHER FUNDS AS NEEDED FROM THE RELATIVELY WEALTHY LOCAL SILICON VALLEY COMMUNITY. THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN CONSIDER RESPONSIVE -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: JEFF -- | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: -- AS RESPONSIVE TO A MATCH. I THINK IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. IF IT COMES BEFORE US, I THINK IN OTHER INSTANCES WHERE THERE'S A LITTLE MORE WIGGLE ROOM, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH HAVING STAFF PROVIDE A REMEDY, BUT I JUST DON'T SEE A REMEDY HERE. I SEE THIS AS WISHFUL THINKING. WE'LL MAKE OUR ALLOCATION, AND THEY'LL GO FIND THE MONEY, AND THAT'S NOT A GOOD MATCH TO ME. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: DAVID, CAN I SUGGEST SOMETHING? I'M THE PRIMARY REVIEWER ON HERE, AND I HAVE ALL OF THE CONCERNS AND MORE THAT JEFF HAS RAISED. COULD WE, FOR THIS ONE INSTANCE, GO THROUGH PRIMARY AND SECONDARY AND THEN PERHAPS REVISIT THAT MOTION BECAUSE I THINK IT WILL BE VERY CLEAR? | ||||||||
| MS. LANSING: I'VE TALKED TO STAFF, AND I THINK THIS APPLICATION BECOMES PRETTY CLEAR IF WE CAN DISCUSS IT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: POINT OF ORDER, MR. CHAIRMAN. IF THAT'S THE WAY THE COMMITTEE WISHES TO PROCEED, THAT'S FINE. BUT AS YOU ORIGINALLY SET OUT, WHICH IS A GREAT PLAN, AND THAT IS OUR PRELIMINARY SCORES ARE BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED AND RESOLVED IN THE APPROPRIATE MOTION AND IT PASSING THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. | ||||||||
| MS. LANSING: I CAN'T HEAR ANYBODY. VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I'M SORRY, SHERRY. I'LL TRY TO SPEAK LOUDER. THE PROCESS THAT WE SET FORTH THIS MORNING, SHERRY, WAS THAT WE WOULD ADDRESS ANY ISSUES WITH AN INDIVIDUAL APPLICATION. WE WOULD MAKE A MOTION, THE MOTION WOULD PASS, WE WOULD HAVE A DISCUSSION, AND THEN WE WOULD ASSIGN OUR PRELIMINARY SCORES BASED THE ASSUMPTION THAT THOSE ISSUES HAD BEEN RESOLVED. | ||||||||
| NOW, I WILL DEFER TO THE CHAIR IN THE BEST WAY TO PROCEED; HOWEVER, AS A PROCEDURAL MATTER, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE OUGHT TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES FIRST BEFORE HAVING A DISCUSSION ON THE APPLICATION, BUT I'M OPEN TO EITHER WAY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YOU KNOW, I ACTUALLY RECONSIDERED. I AGREE WITH THE VICE CHAIR THAT WE HAVE TO KEEP A CONSISTENT APPROACH FOR ALL THE GRANT APPLICATIONS. SO IN TERMS OF THIS PARTICULAR FINANCIAL ISSUE, WE HAVE A MOTION THAT WAS SECONDED. ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS THAT WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WHILE I AGREE WITH JEFF'S BASIC COMMENTS AND DEBORAH'S BASIC COMMENTS, FROM A LEGAL BASIS, TO MAKE SURE WE'RE PROVIDING UNIFORMITY IN APPROACH, I THINK THESE -- FIRST OF ALL, THE MOTION REQUIRES THERE BE ADEQUATE ASSURANCES. AND BY THE TIME OF THE BOARD MEETING, IF THERE'S NOT ADEQUATE ASSURANCES, JEFF'S PERSPECTIVE IS GOING TO BE VALIDATED. SO I THINK THE KEY HERE, THOUGH, IS FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE TO HAVE A UNIFORM APPROACH, THAT WE'RE ADDRESSING THE TECHNICAL FINANCIAL ISSUES ON ALL OF THESE IN THE SAME MANNER. AS THE VICE CHAIR HAS SAID, THAT UNIFORMITY IS IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF PROCESS. | ||||||||
| AS WE GO THROUGH THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY REVIEW, I THINK IT'S GOING TO BECOME VERY CLEAR WHAT JEFF AND DEBORAH ARE SAYING AND SHERRY LANSING IS SAYING ON THIS ITEM. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I WILL USE -- IF IT'S APPROPRIATE, THIS IS MY OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, I'LL PASS THE MIC AND ASK, THEN, LORI HOFFMAN OR RICK KELLER TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THE MATCHING GRANT -- THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW -- AND PROVIDE SOME BACKGROUND BECAUSE THAT WOULD INFORM MY DECISION ON VOTING ON THE MOTION BEFORE US. | ||||||||
| NOW, AFTER THOSE TWO HAVE SPOKEN, BECAUSE, BOB, YOU STATED, ONCE WE TALK ABOUT IT, IT WILL BECOME ABUNDANTLY CLEAR AND WE'LL ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT'S HAPPENING. BEFORE WE HAVE THAT DISCUSSION, MAYBE WE CAN DISCUSS ON THIS DISCRETE ISSUE, WHICH WILL INFORM MY DECISION TO MAKE THE MOTION; AND THEN WHEN YOU ARE | ||||||||
| DONE, I'D LIKE TO COMMENT, IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE TO THE CHAIR. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: I AGREE WITH DAVID. FOR ME THEY DID NOT MEET THAT ELEMENT OF THE RFA. THEY JUST WROTE A SENTENCE, "WE'RE GOING TO GO OUT AND GET THE MONEY." I THINK THAT THEY JUST DIDN'T MEET THAT ELEMENT OF THE RFA. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE SHOULD TRY TO MITIGATE IT HERE TODAY. FOR ME IT'S REALLY MISSING. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: MARCY, I WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT, THEN I'M GOING TO HAVE TAMAR COMMENT. AGAIN, WHAT WE HAD SET FORTH EARLIER TODAY WAS THAT WE WERE UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE CORRECTED, AND WE'RE GIVING ALL THE APPLICANTS THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT THESE TYPES OF ISSUES. SO TAMAR. | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: I WANT TO POINT OUT A COUPLE OF THINGS. THIS IS KIND OF AN INTERIM PROCEDURE THAT WE'VE ADOPTED FOR DEALING WITH ISSUES, AND HOPEFULLY THE NEXT TIME WE'RE ALL SITTING HERE TO EVALUATE GRANTS, WE'LL HAVE A DIFFERENT PROCEDURE FOR DEALING WITH THESE KIND OF TECHNICAL FINANCIAL PROBLEMS. THAT'S NO. 1. | ||||||||
| IN USING THIS INTERIM PROCEDURE, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT THINGS IS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH RESPECT TO THESE KINDS OF TECHNICAL FINANCIAL DEFICIENCIES. BY ADOPTING THIS MOTION AND ADOPTING THIS PROCEDURE, YOU ARE NOT SAYING THAT THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE FUNDED. YOUR CONSIDERATION IS MUCH MORE COMPLEX THAN THIS ISSUE, THIS SINGLE ISSUE. THERE ARE ASPECTS EVEN OF THIS SINGLE ISSUE THAT ARE MORE COMPLEX THAN WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO GIVE THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO REMEDY THIS BEFORE IT GOES TO THE ICOC. | ||||||||
| SO I WOULD RECOMMEND TO THE PANEL THAT IT VOTE ON THE MOTION AND ADOPT IT FOR PURPOSES OF PROCEEDING CONSISTENTLY WITH THIS PROCEDURE, AND THEN MOVE ON TO ITS REVIEW OF THE REAL MERITS OF THIS APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: IF IT'S MY QUESTION, THEN I DON'T GET IT ANSWERED, WHICH IS OKAY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DAVID, LET ME RECOGNIZE JEFF. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I HAD A QUESTION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WE'RE GOING TO GO TO YOUR QUESTION. JEFF. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I JUST THINK, YOU KNOW, THAT FOR THE REVIEW TO BE MEANINGFUL AND FOR US TO HAVE SOME SORT OF STANDARDS AS REVIEWERS, THAT WHEN WE HAVE THE APPLICATION THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT THAT IS SO CLEARLY DEFICIENT, THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT EVEN -- I UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR CONSISTENCY AND THAT SOME THINGS DESERVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE REMEDIED, BUT THIS TO ME -- IF THIS HAPPENED -- I MEAN I'LL GIVE YOU AN EQUIVALENT IN THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW. YOU DON'T HAVE A SCIENTIST THAT CAN DO THE WORK, SO YOU SAY YOU'RE GOING TO GO GET ONE. AND I THINK THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW WOULD LAUGH PEOPLE OUT OF THE SHOP FOR SAYING, WELL, LET'S LET THEM REMEDY AND SEE IF THEY REALLY CAN GO OUT AND RECRUIT ANOTHER SCIENTIST TO ACTUALLY DO THE WORK. | ||||||||
| THERE HAS TO BE A CERTAIN BASELINE THAT WE ESTABLISH AS A REVIEW PANEL OF QUALITY OF APPLICATION, OR ELSE WE'RE JUST BASICALLY NOT EVEN REALLY ASKING FOR APPLICATIONS. WE'RE ASKING FOR A WISH LIST THAT WE WILL THEN GO BACK AND FORTH WITH UNTIL THEY ACTUALLY GIVE US SOMETHING THAT WE CAN APPROVE AND FUND. | ||||||||
| SO I PERSONALLY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A CREDIBLE SENTENCE IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS APPLICATION AND IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS PROCESS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: JEFF, THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. THE VICE CHAIR WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS, AND I'D LIKE TO HAVE A VOTE ON THIS MOTION. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE NO ON THE MOTION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON. AS MY COLLEAGUE, JEFF SHEEHY, POINTED OUT, THERE ARE DEGREES OF DEFICIENCIES FROM A SCRIBNER'S ERROR TO, IN MY MIND, WHAT THIS APPLICATION REPRESENTS, JUST READING IT, THAT IT SEEMS SO SPECULATIVE, THE MATCHING GRANT COMPONENT, THAT IT JUST DIDN'T MEET THE RFA REQUIREMENTS. AND I DON'T THINK IT'S CURABLE THROUGH A MOTION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR. AT THIS POINT I'D LIKE TO CALL A VOTE ON THIS MOTION. JANET. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: COULD YOU REPEAT THE MOTION? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THE MOTION IS THAT THE SOURCE FOR THE MATCHING FUNDS MUST BE IDENTIFIED AND THERE MUST BE ADEQUATE ASSURANCES OF PERFORMANCE ON THAT MATCHING FUNDS SOURCE THAT IS IDENTIFIED AS A REQUIREMENT OF THIS APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO READ THE EXACT VERBIAGE? SO IT WILL READ CIRM SHOULD REQUIRE THAT THE APPLICANT IDENTIFY AN APPROPRIATE SOURCE WITH ADEQUATE ASSURANCE FOR PERFORMANCE OF MATCHING FUNDS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I SECONDED THE MOTION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I UNDERSTAND THAT SOME OF THE MEMBERS HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THIS MOTION AND THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION. I, FOR ONE, YOU KNOW, WILL VOTE FOR THE MOTION JUST TO KEEP A CONSISTENT PROCEDURAL APPROACH. AND I DO BELIEVE THAT ON THE NEXT ROUND OF GRANT APPLICATIONS THAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH SOME BETTER PROCEDURES FOR DEALING WITH THESE ISSUES DOWN THE LINE. | ||||||||
| SO I'D LIKE TO HAVE A ROLL CALL. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: MARCY FEIT. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: NO. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: ROBERT KLEIN. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YES. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: SHERRY LANSING. | ||||||||
| MS. LANSING: YES. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: JOAN SAMUELSON. JEFF SHEEHY. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: NO. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: NO. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: JANET WRIGHT. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: YES. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: DEBORAH HYSEN. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: NO. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: EDWARD KASHIAN. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: YES. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: DAVID LICHTENGER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: THAT MOTION ACTUALLY CARRIES FIVE TO FOUR. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. THANK YOU, MELISSA. SO, DEBORAH, YOU ARE THE PRIMARY REVIEWER ON THIS APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: WELL, I THOUGHT MY JOB WOULD BE DIFFICULT BECAUSE THE LAST COUPLE APPLICATIONS WERE HAPPILY ENDORSED, AND I WAS FEELING RATHER IN A DIFFICULT POSITION BECAUSE I WAS NOT GOING TO ENDORSE THIS APPLICATION. LET ME GIVE YOU SOME DETAILS AS TO WHY I FELT THAT THIS WAS NOT SOMETHING I WOULD SUPPORT. | ||||||||
| I FELT IN GENERAL IT WAS PREMATURE. THIS IS AN ORGANIZATION -- AND I DIDN'T DO WHAT JEFF DID, ALTHOUGH I WAS SORELY TEMPTED BECAUSE WE DID HAVE A DISCUSSION IN OUR LAST MEETING THAT WE HAD TO LOOK AT THE RFA AS OUR SOLE SOURCE, AND WE COULD NOT GO OUTSIDE TO GET ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, AND I WAS REALLY WANTING TO DO THAT BECAUSE IT LEFT ME WITH MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS. THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A JOINT VENTURE. AND WHILE WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE TRIED TO ENCOURAGE COLLABORATION, I FELT THAT THIS JOINT VENTURE WAS NOT REALLY FORMED IN TOTAL. IT SEEMED THAT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS VERY CURSORY, THAT IT WAS AN IDEA, THAT IT WAS FORMING. AND I JUST FELT THAT THE PRELIMINARY NATURE OF WHAT THEY'RE SUBMITTING CARRIED THROUGH EVERY CATEGORY. | ||||||||
| FOR INSTANCE, THEY PLAN TO LEASE SPACE IN A VACANT BUILDING THAT WAS FORMERLY A MANUFACTURING FACILITY. AND IT'S A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT SPACE. AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, THIS DOES INCLUDE A TECHNIQUES COURSE. I THINK THIS IS OUR FIRST APPLICANT SO FAR THAT INCLUDES A TECHNIQUES COURSE. AND GOOD SPACE IN TERMS OF IT COULD HOUSE A LOT OF PI'S. I KNOW THEY MENTIONED THREE PI'S, BUT IT'S A FAIRLY SUBSTANTIAL SPACE, SO I'M JUST CURIOUS WHY THEY HAD SUCH A SMALL AMOUNT. | ||||||||
| BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT THERE'S ONLY AN ORAL COMMITMENT BY THE LANDLORD. AND THEY'RE EXPECTING TO GET A THREE-YEAR RENEWABLE CONTRACT. SO IN MY MIND THIS WAS NOT A COMPLETE DEAL. I THINK IT'S PROBABLY REALLY HARD FOR SOMEONE TO START UP AN OPERATION LIKE THIS FROM SCRATCH BECAUSE WE WANT TO SEE A COMMITMENT. AT LEAST I WANT TO SEE A COMMITMENT. I WANT TO KNOW THAT ONCE MONEY IS GIVEN, THAT THEY'RE READY TO GO. I JUST FELT THAT THEY REALLY WEREN'T READY TO GO. | ||||||||
| AND THE DRAWINGS WERE BASICALLY A FLOOR PLAN, I ASSUME, PROVIDED BY THE LANDLORD WITH HANDWRITTEN NOTES ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO DO. YOU KNOW, COMPARED TO THE OTHER APPLICATIONS, WHICH CLEARLY WENT TO A MORE DETAILED LEVEL OF DESCRIPTION, I JUST FELT THAT THIS WAS NOT SOMEONE THAT WE SHOULD BE FUNDING. | ||||||||
| SO FROM A FEASIBILITY STANDPOINT, I GAVE THEM A VERY LOW SCORE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: FROM A COST STANDPOINT, THEY WERE VERY COMPETITIVE. THE COSTS FOR THIS WERE VERY COMPETITIVE, PARTICULARLY ON A PER-SQUARE-FOOT BASIS BECAUSE, UNLIKE ONE OF MY PREVIOUS APPLICANTS, THIS IS A VERY LARGE LAB. AND SO THEY WERE ABLE TO LEVERAGE THE ECONOMIES OF SCALE. SO THEY DID SEEM TO DO THAT. BUT IT WAS VERY HARD FOR ME TO ANALYZE COSTS BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THEY HAD A CLUE, BASED ON THEIR PLANS, SOME OF THE MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, AND PLUMBING ISSUES THAT MIGHT BE INVOLVED IN THIS FACILITY. THIS IS NOT CURRENTLY A LAB FACILITY. IT'S A MANUFACTURING FACILITY. AND IT'S AN OFFICE BUILDING TOO. THAT WAS INTERESTING. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DEBORAH, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THIS. SO DID THEY CLEARLY IDENTIFY A DETAILED BUDGET AND A PROJECT TEAM IN THEIR APPLICATION? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: CAN I GET TO THAT IN A SECOND, AND I'LL WRAP IT UP FOR YOU? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'M NOT RUSHING YOU. I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND ON THIS PARTICULAR POINT SOME MORE INFORMATION. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: LET ME FINISH THIS PIECE, AND I'LL GO TO THAT. I JUST REALLY HAD A HARD TIME TRYING TO SEE IF THESE COSTS WERE -- THERE'S NOTHING FOR ME TO COMPARE WHETHER OR NOT THESE COSTS WERE REAL. SO I GAVE THEM A VERY LOW SCORE ON THAT EVEN THOUGH ON A PER-SQUARE-FOOT BASIS, I THINK IT'S ONE OF THE MORE COMPETITIVE OF THE APPLICANTS. | ||||||||
| TIMELINE AND MILESTONES, THEY PROJECT AN EIGHT-MONTH CONSTRUCTION TIMEFRAME. I DON'T RECALL WHAT THAT -- OCCUPANCY WOULD BE JULY OF '08. SO IT'S CONSISTENT SOMEWHAT WITH THE OTHER APPLICATIONS THAT I HAVE. BUT, AGAIN, I DON'T SEE ANY TIME THAT WAS ALLOTTED FOR NEGOTIATING WITH THE LANDLORD. THEY INDICATED THIS LANDLORD WAS INTERESTED IN DOING A LEASE WITH THEM, BUT FOR THE PEOPLE ON THE REAL ESTATE SIDE, WE KNOW HOW THAT WORKS. I MEAN THERE COULD BE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME NEGOTIATING THAT DEAL. I JUST REALLY COULDN'T ASSESS MUCH MERIT TO THE TIMELINE, SO I GAVE THEM A LOW SCORE FOR THAT AS WELL. | ||||||||
| THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT IS AN INTERESTING AREA BECAUSE ON THE SURFACE THEY INDICATED THAT THEY DO HAVE OR CAN GET AN INSTITUTIONAL MATCH. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE RFA, AND THIS KIND OF GOES TO THE REASON I SAID NO, THE RFA DIDN'T HAVE SOMEONE SIGN ON THE DOTTED LINE TO ASSURE THAT THEY WOULD, IN FACT, PROVIDE THE COMMITMENT. IN MY MIND, AND PLEASE JUMP IN IF I'M INCORRECT, IN MY MIND, BY THE VERY NATURE OF THEM SAYING THEY'RE GOING TO GET AN INSTITUTIONAL MATCH MEANT THAT THAT WAS THEIR ASSURANCE. SO I FELT THAT THEY DID MEET THAT. IN FACT, THEY EXCEEDED THE MINIMUM MATCH ON PAPER. HOWEVER, AS JEFF INDICATED AND AS, I THINK, RICK INDICATED, THEY HAVE THIS COMMITMENT FROM OTHER PARTIES, SHALL WE SAY, AND IT DIDN'T APPEAR THAT THESE OTHER PARTIES WERE A SIGNATORY TO THE RFA. | ||||||||
| THE JOINT VENTURE, I DON'T BELIEVE THE JOINT VENTURE PARTNER ON THIS, WHO SEEMS LIKE IT MAY BE A SENIOR PARTNER, IS A SIGNATORY TO THE RFA. SO I DIDN'T GET THE SENSE THAT THERE WAS A LEGAL BODY THAT WE COULD GO TO AND DEAL WITH ON THIS ISSUE. IT COULD BE THAT THEY ARE AND THEY JUST DIDN'T PUT THEIR TITLE AND THEIR ORGANIZATION, BUT IT WASN'T CLEAR TO ME THAT BOTH PARTNERS IN THIS VENTURE WERE SIGNATORIES TO THE RFA. | ||||||||
| SO I GAVE THEM A MEDIUM SCORE ON INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT JUST BECAUSE ON PAPER IT LOOKED LIKE THEY MET THE REQUIREMENTS. | ||||||||
| HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE, THE PROJECTS THAT THEY SAY THEY HAVE DONE ARE EXTREMELY MINOR AND I DON'T BELIEVE DEMONSTRATES THAT THEY HAVE DONE THIS KIND OF WORK IN THE PAST. THEY DO INDICATE THAT THE PROJECT SUPERVISOR IS ALSO THE PRESIDENT OF THE ORGANIZATION,AND IT STRUCK ME THAT SOMEONE WHO'S A SCIENTIST MAY NOT BE THE BEST FACILITY CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AND MAY NOT HAVE THE TIME. I'M NOT SURE WE WANT TO HAVE THE SCIENTIST'S ATTENTION DIVERTED TO MANAGING CONTRACTORS. I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. | ||||||||
| THEY DO INDICATE THERE IS ANOTHER SUPERVISOR FROM THE INSTITUTE, BUT I COULDN'T TELL WHAT THAT TITLE WAS, WHAT THE BACKGROUND WAS, SO IT LEFT ME WITH WONDERING WHO WAS GOING TO BE RUNNING THIS AND THE FACT THAT I DIDN'T THINK THEY HAD THE EXPERIENCE TO BACK IT UP, SO ZERO ON THAT. | ||||||||
| THE OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THIS RFA IN TERMS OF RESPONSIVENESS, I FELT LIKE PERHAPS THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT COULD BE DONE IN THE FUTURE WITH THIS JOINT VENTURE, BUT OVERALL I FELT IT WAS JUST PREMATURE. THEY REALLY TO NEED TO GET THEIR DUCKS IN ORDER A LITTLE BIT MORE, GET SOME OF THESE THINGS MORE CEMENTED BEFORE THEY CAN POSSIBLY COME TO US AGAIN. I ACTUALLY WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THIS NOT BE FUNDED. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DEBORAH, THANK YOU FOR THAT VERY DETAILED ANALYSIS OF APPLICATION 517. SHERRY, DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER CLARIFICATION OR ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD? | ||||||||
| MS. LANSING: I JUST WANT TO ADD THAT I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT WAS SAID. I FOUND IT EXACTLY THE SAME WAY. AND, AGAIN, I CONSULTED WITH RICK, BUT THIS IS ONE THAT WAS VERY CLEAR TO ME. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: EXCELLENT. THANK YOU, SHERRY. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: PROBABLY NOT NECESSARY, BUT I WONDER IF YOU'D COMMENT ON THEIR PROPOSAL FOR THE COURSE SINCE THIS IS THE FIRST ONE WE'VE SEEN WITH A COURSE? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: YEAH. IT'S -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DEBORAH, IF YOU THINK IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE OVERALL APPLICATION, IT MIGHT FACILITATE THIS PROCESS IF YOU SAY IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER PART. IF IT'S DIFFERENT, TRY TO LET US KNOW THAT AS WELL. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: WELL, IT SEEMED TO HAVE A BIT MORE INFORMATION BECAUSE THE TECHNIQUES COURSE IS MEANT TO BE A TRAINING OPPORTUNITY. MY IMPRESSION AS A FACILITY MANAGER IS THE MORE SPACE YOU ALLOCATE TOWARDS THAT, THE MORE POSSIBLE IT IS TO TRAIN SCIENTISTS. AS OPPOSED TO SOME OF THESE VERY SMALL LABS, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHERE THEY COULD DO THE TRAINING IN THESE LABS. BUT THIS ONE IN THE DRAWING SEEMED TO BE SET UP IDEALLY TO DO THAT. THEY DID REFERENCE -- THIS IS ONE OF THOSE APPLICANTS I MENTIONED EARLIER THAT'S IN A VERY GEOGRAPHICAL AREA THAT'S VERY CLOSE TO A LOT OF HIGH LEVEL EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS AND HOSPITALS AND DID REFERENCE THAT THEY WOULD DRAW UPON THEIR EXPERTISE AND BRING THEM INTO THIS TECHNIQUES COURSE. | ||||||||
| ON PAPER IT LOOKED LIKE THIS ACTUALLY COULD BE VIABLE; BUT, AGAIN, I THINK BECAUSE MY OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THIS APPLICATION SEEMED THAT IT WAS PREMATURE, I FELT LIKE MAYBE THE TECHNIQUES COURSE MIGHT BE IN THE SAME DILEMMA. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? BOB. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT WE'RE HERE AND EVALUATING FACILITIES AND A SHARED FACILITY AND THE ABILITY TO RUN AND OPERATE A SHARED FACILITY AND BUILD IT. I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE. THIS ISN'T MEANT TO BE A COMMENT ON THE SCIENTISTS WHO WERE LISTED AND THE TECHNIQUES COURSE WHO HAVE SOME EXCELLENT RESUMES. BUT UNDER INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THERE'S MORE THAN JUST A MATCH IN INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT IN MY MIND. IF YOU HAVE AN INSTITUTIONAL PRESENCE WITH THE STRUCTURE TO SUPPORT THE SCIENCE, YOU CAN CONTRIBUTE A GREAT DEAL MORE TO THE ABILITY TO CARRY OUT A SHARED LAB THAN MERELY HAVING SOME INDIVIDUAL SCIENTISTS LISTED. | ||||||||
| THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE AN INSTITUTIONAL PRESENCE. IT'S MORE LIKE A VIRTUAL INSTITUTION HERE. SO IN TERMS OF INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, I DIDN'T THINK THAT THEY MET OUR REAL INTENT IN SUPPLYING INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT FOR THE FULL SCALE OF SUPPORT SERVICES AND OTHER FUNCTIONAL INTERRELATIONSHIPS THAT REALLY CAN CONTRIBUTE TO EFFECTIVELY CARRYING OUT A SHARED LAB AND THE RESEARCH DONE THERE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, BOB. ARE THERE ANY FINAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR THE PRIMARY OR SECONDARY REVIEWERS ON APPLICATION 517? IF NOT, I'D ASK EVERYONE TO RECORD THEIR PRELIMINARY SCORE ON THIS APPLICATION. AND THEN, RICK, WOULD THE NEXT APPLICATION NUMBER BE 504-1. YES. WE'VE DONE 502 ALREADY, CORRECT? SO NEXT ONE WOULD BE 504-1. | ||||||||
| MS. LANSING: I'M RECUSED FROM THAT, SO I'M GOING TO GET OFF THE PHONE NOW, SO YOU CAN NOT WORRY ABOUT TALKING LOUDER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP, SHERRY. HAVE A GREAT DAY. | ||||||||
| MS. LANSING: THANK YOU AND THANK YOU FOR ACCOMMODATING AND TALKING LOUDER. THANKS A LOT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO RICK, LORI. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: 504. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO WE HAVE SOME FOLKS THAT NEED TO RECUSE THEMSELVES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THIS IS A REQUEST FOR THE SHARED LAB AND TECHNIQUES COURSE, $2 MILLION FOR THE SHARED LAB, 471,000 FOR THE SHARED LAB. AND I HAVE A CONFLICT ON THIS ONE, SO WILL NOT PARTICIPATE. AND IT'S ALSO NOTED THAT LORI HOFFMAN HAS A SIMILAR PRE-EMPLOYMENT CONFLICT. OTHER CONFLICTS ARE MEMBERS LANSING AND FEIT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: EXCELLENT. WHO, RICK, WILL BE ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WE HAVE ON STAFF ISSUES AND QUESTIONS? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THE REVIEW THAT WAS PROVIDED WAS CONDUCTED BY AN OUTSIDE EVALUATOR. HIS NAME IS ROBERT MCGEE AND IS WITH THE HOWARD HUGHES RESEARCH FOUNDATION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IS HE AVAILABLE FOR US? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: ACTUALLY HE'S OUT OF THE COUNTRY, AND WE WERE, BECAUSE OF THAT DIFFICULTY, WE WEREN'T ABLE TO TIE HIM IN TODAY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. SO ARE THE MEMBERS DONE WITH THE PRELIMINARY SCORING OF APPLICATION 517? MOVING FORWARD. SO I'D LIKE TO -- | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THE PRIMARY REVIEWER FOR 504 IS MEMBER KASHIAN AND SECONDARY REVIEWER IS MEMBER SHEEHY. THERE ARE NO ISSUES IN THE STAFF ANALYSIS REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO WILL YOU AND LORI BE LEAVING THE ROOM? WORKS FOR ME. | ||||||||
| (MEMBERS LANSING AND FEIT AND STAFF MEMBERS HOFFMAN AND KELLER ARE RECUSED FROM APPLICATION 504-1 AND ARE NOT PRESENT IN THE ROOM.) | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO, ED, IF YOU COULD PLEASE PROCEED WITH THE PRIMARY REVIEW. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: THANK YOU. I FOUND THE APPLICATION OVERALL TO BE A VERY GOOD CATEGORY FROM MY POINT OF VIEW. AND THAT I GAVE IT UPPER PERCENTILE GRADES IN ALL ISSUES EXCEPT FOR HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE. I FELT LIKE THEIR PERFORMANCE IN THE PAST HAS BEEN NOT UP TO MY STANDARDS. | ||||||||
| THE COST ISSUE IS MEDIUM PERCENTILE FROM MY POINT OF VIEW. BUT THE COMMITMENT AND THE FEASIBILITY ARE EXCELLENT FROM MY POINT OF VIEW. | ||||||||
| I'LL ANSWER WHATEVER QUESTIONS YOU'D LIKE. I HAPPENED TO GET THIS ONE AT THE LAST MOMENT, BY THE WAY. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: I'M JUST CURIOUS WHY YOU RATED HISTORICAL LOW. STAFF ANALYSIS LOOKS LIKE IT'S ACTUALLY VERY CLOSE TO COMPLETION DATE, CLOSE TO DOLLARS, AND THEY SEEM TO GIVE THIS A VERY GOOD RATING. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: IT DID. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ED, I HAVE THE SAME QUESTION. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: THE STAFF ANALYSIS, THIS IS ONE AREA WHERE I DIFFER FROM THE STAFF ANALYSIS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: FAIR ENOUGH. DULY NOTED. ED, I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE COST. IT APPEARED THAT THE COST WAS $911 ASSIGNABLE SQUARE FOOT WHICH SEEMED TO BE HIGH TO ME. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: IT IS HIGH, AND I GAVE IT, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, I GAVE IT A MEDIOCRE SCORE, BUT YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER IT'S A PART OF THE UNIVERSITY CALIFORNIA SYSTEM, AND THEY HAVE A WAY OF RUNNING UP COSTS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IN THE FUTURE IF YOU COULD -- WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THESE APPLICATIONS WITH NO NAMES, JUST APPLICATION NUMBERS. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| SO IN TERMS -- I JUST WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ON COST BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS IN TERMS OF ASSIGNABLE AND GROSS PER SQUARE FOOT. AND IT LOOKS LIKE, YOU KNOW, ON A PER-SQUARE-FOOT BASIS IN THE STAFF ANALYSIS IT'S ABOUT $589 PER GROSS SQUARE FOOT, WHICH IS KIND OF CLOSE TO WHAT STAFF IS CALLING REPLACEMENT VALUE. AND I BELIEVE THAT STAFF HAD CONCLUDED THAT ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE 60 PERCENT OR LESS THAN REPLACEMENT VALUE FOR LAB SPACE WOULD BE CONSIDERED GOOD VALUE FOR CIRM DOLLARS. SO I JUST WANT TO KIND OF NOTE THAT FOR THE RECORD. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THIS IS A MODULAR BUILDING, SO IT'S NOT A RENOVATION. IT'S A NEW FACILITY. SO I THINK IT SHOULD BE REALLY VIEWED IN CONTEXT OF FULL REPLACEMENT VALUE BECAUSE IT IS A NEW BUILDING RATHER THAN MANY OF THESE OTHERS ARE RENOVATIONS. AND THAT'S THE STANDARD, I THINK, DAVID, YOU MIGHT HAVE BEEN REFERENCING. | ||||||||
| BUT THE OTHER POINT HERE IS THAT IN TERMS OF THIS FACILITY, THE CRYOPRESERVATION CAPACITY, THE CELLULAR RADIATION FACILITY THAT'S BUILT INTO THIS CAN DRIVE UP SOME COSTS. AND SO I THOUGHT THAT, GIVEN -- IF I COMPARED IT, AS ED KASHIAN HAS SAID, TO THE FACT THAT UNIVERSITIES OF CALIFORNIA ARE HELD TO HIGHER CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS THAN PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS FOR SEISMIC AND OTHER REASONS, THAT WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THEY'RE CONSTRICTED BY THE LEGISLATION OF THE STATE. | ||||||||
| AND REALLY I TRIED TO LOOK AT THIS IN THE CONTEXT OF ON A COMPARATIVE BASIS WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS WHO WERE UC SYSTEMS, HOW DID THEY DO IN TRYING TO DEAL WITH THOSE VERY TOUGH REGULATIONS? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU, BOB. SO I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR ED. WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT A MODULAR FACILITY, DO THEY GO INTO -- HOW MUCH DETAIL DID THEY GO INTO IN TERMS OF WHAT KIND OF MODULAR FACILITY? | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I DIDN'T GET INTO THE DETAIL, AND I DON'T FEEL LIKE THAT'S MY RESPONSIBILITY. THE POINT IS IT IS A MODULAR FACILITY, AND THE RESULT OF WHICH IS THAT I THINK THEY'RE TAILORING IT JUST FOR THE GRANT FUNDS FROM THIS AREA. I PREFER INSTITUTIONS THAT DEAL WITH PERFORMANCE OF A BUILDING OR CONSTRUCTION THAT WOULD BE LONG-TERM LONG AFTER THIS INSTITUTE IS DEFUNDED. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I'D LIKE TO -- THANK YOU, ED. I'D LIKE TO HAVE THE SECONDARY REVIEW NOW. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: SURE. AND I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO GIVE ME SCORE, AND I CHANGED IT A LITTLE BIT FROM WHAT I PUT OUT. I PROBABLY AM SCORING LOWER. SO I HOPE PEOPLE WILL TAKE THAT. I THINK OUR OVERALL TENOR HERE IS PROBABLY HIGHER THAN I'M SCORING. I FELT THAT THIS WAS A VERY STRONG APPLICATION, AND I SCORED THIS AS 83. | ||||||||
| AND LOOKING AT FEASIBILITY, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THOUGHT WAS VERY IMPORTANT ABOUT THIS PROJECT IS THAT THEY'VE ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR NONHUMAN PRIMATE FACILITY. AND THAT ALREADY EXISTS IN SOME MANNER AS A SHARED LAB FACILITY FOR PEOPLE DOING RESEARCH AROUND THE STATE AND POSSIBLY -- AT LEAST I KNOW RESEARCHERS IN CALIFORNIA TEND TO DO A LOT OF THEIR NONHUMAN PRIMATE WORK AT THIS LAB. SO THAT ASSOCIATION FOR ME SHOWS A REAL COMMITMENT TO A SHARED FACILITY. AND I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS A VERY REASONABLE PROJECT, SO I GAVE IT 15. I GAVE IT THE HIGHEST SCORE. | ||||||||
| I HAD THE SAME PROBLEMS THAT ED HAD WITH THE COST. THIS WAS THE HIGHEST COST IN MY BATCH, AND SO I MOVED IT FROM A 9 TO A 12 BASED ON WHAT I'VE HEARD IN THE LAST FEW MINUTES. AND IT WAS MITIGATED. THE COST WAS MITIGATED BECAUSE IT ALSO HAD THE HIGHEST INSTITUTIONAL MATCH OF ANY APPLICATION IN MY BATCH. SO TO MY MIND THAT MITIGATES SOME OF THE COST. | ||||||||
| THE TIMELINE, I GIVE IT AN 18. I THOUGHT IT WAS STRONG BASED ON WHAT STAFF SAID. THOUGH I DO TAKE ED'S POINTS, AND I MAY MOVE THAT DOWN A LITTLE BIT IN MY FINAL SCORE. | ||||||||
| THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, AS I SAID THEY'RE HIGHEST. THEY GET A 20 -- I PUT DOWN 18. THEY GET A HIGH SCORE ON THAT. THEY MORE THAN MATCHED THAT. | ||||||||
| HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE, I GAVE IT A LITTLE BIT LOWER SCORE HERE. AND I DON'T KNOW -- I HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE STAFF ANALYSIS IN MORE DETAIL. I HAVE TWO DIFFERENT ANALYSES I THINK I'M WORKING FROM. WHAT I REMEMBER READING IS THAT THEY HAD NOT DONE THIS TYPE OF PROJECT BEFORE, SO THAT THEIR HISTORIC PERFORMANCE HAD BEEN GOOD, BUT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THEY'VE DONE A PROJECT OF THIS TYPE. AND I CAN LOOK THAT UP IF YOU WOULD LIKE. | ||||||||
| AND THEN I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY RESPONSIVE. I GAVE IT A 14; BUT, AGAIN, I WAS SCORING LOW. I COULD EASILY GIVE IT A 15. THEY'RE CLEARLY PLANNING TO SHARE THIS WITH OTHER RESEARCHERS AND IS VERY RESPONSIVE. | ||||||||
| I ALSO WOULD NOTE THAT THERE'S A TECHNIQUES COURSE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS EVEN THOUGH THAT THAT DIDN'T MAKE IT -- I DON'T THINK THE STAFF REPORT CAUGHT THAT. BUT I THINK THAT THAT SHOULD BE SCORED AS HIGH OR HIGHER. ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT THIS MODULAR FACILITY IS THAT IT DOES SEEM TO CREATE AN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THE SHARED TECHNIQUES COURSE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, JEFF. THAT WAS A VERY DETAILED REVIEW. I APPRECIATE THAT. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: CAN I ASK A QUESTION? AND MAYBE THIS HAS BEEN ADDRESSED. I JUST FORGOT. IF ONE OF THE LAB FACILITIES IS NOT FUNDED, BUT THE TECHNIQUES COURSE IS FUNDED, IS EVERY INSTITUTION PREPARED TO DO JUST THE TECHNIQUES COURSE IF THEY DON'T GET THE FUNDS? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK THAT'S -- I THINK WE'D HAVE TO ASK STAFF THAT QUESTION. SO MAYBE WE CAN -- CAN WE ADDRESS THAT? THERE HAS TO BE A SHARED FACILITY TO BE FUNDED. AND THEN IF A SHARED FACILITY IS FUNDED, THEN THE TECHNIQUES COURSE CAN BE FUNDED, BUT NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: EXACTLY. YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE THE FACILITY BEFORE YOU CAN -- | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: THANK YOU. MAKES SENSE. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: JEFF, IN THE COURSE WERE THEY PLANNING TO TEACH THE PRIMATES HOW TO DO STEM CELL RESEARCH? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THEN I WOULD DEFINITELY RECOMMEND IT FOR FUNDING IF THEY'RE ABLE TO DO THAT. OKAY. | ||||||||
| SO, YOU KNOW, I PERSONALLY DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE REVIEWERS. DID THE MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PRIMARY OR SECONDARY REVIEWERS? THE ONLY COMMENT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE, AND I WILL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON MODULAR CONSTRUCTION, IS THAT IF WE WERE TO LOOK AT THE COST OF THIS MODULAR CONSTRUCTION AND LOOK AT THE LENGTH OF SERVICE THAT WE COULD EXPECT FROM THIS INVESTMENT RELATIVE TO POTENTIALLY A GROUND-UP CONSTRUCTION, I JUST THINK IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON THIS. THE LITTLE I KNOW ABOUT MODULAR CONSTRUCTION, IT'S IMPROVED GREATLY OVER THE PAST FIVE TO TEN YEARS. TYPICALLY WILL NOT HAVE THE SAME LIFE EXPECTANCY AS NEW GROUND-UP CONSTRUCTION, BUT THAT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT MEMBERS MAY TO WANT TO CONSIDER. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT GIVEN THE SPEED OF CHANGE IN THIS AREA IN EQUIPMENT AND IN SPACE, IN TEN YEARS YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH ANY ONE OF THESE RENOVATIONS AND GUT REHAB THEM AND REDO THEM. IT'S JUST THE SPEED AT WHICH THE TECHNOLOGY CHANGES. AND ADDITIONALLY, AT THIS COST LEVEL, AT THIS COST LEVEL PER SQUARE FOOT, THE MODULAR CONSTRUCTION THAT I'VE BEEN FAMILIAR WITH WOULD, IN FACT, HAVE, YOU KNOW, A 30-YEAR LIFE. THE FINANCING REGULATIONS REALLY DRIVE THAT. THEY HAVE TO HAVE AT LEAST A 30-YEAR LIFE TO BE ABLE TO GET INSTITUTIONAL FINANCING AND BOND FINANCING. SO I'D EXPECT A VERY LONG LIFE ON THIS LEVEL OF COST FOR MODULAR CONSTRUCTION. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: THIS IS A MORE GENERAL COMMENT. BUT CONSIDERING THAT JEFF BROUGHT UP THE SCORING SPREAD CONCEPT, YOU MIGHT WANT TO COMMENT ON ADVICE FOR US. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO, YOU KNOW, EVERYONE CAN -- THE MEMBERS CAN FEEL FREE TO USE THE FULL RANGE OF SCORING ON THE APPLICATIONS. AND, YOU KNOW, JUST IF IT'S A ZERO TO 20, YOU CAN CERTAINLY SAY A 10 IS AN AVERAGE, BELOW 10 IS BELOW AVERAGE, AND 20 IS PERFECT. | ||||||||
| AND THE ONLY OTHER COMMENT I WOULD MAKE -- THANK YOU FOR REMINDING ME ON THAT, JANET -- IS THAT WE ARE COMPARING THE GRANT APPLICATIONS TO EACH OTHER. NOT A PERFECT WORLD. SO WHEN WE ARE JUDGING THEM, WE SHOULD COMPARE IT TO THE OTHER APPLICATIONS WE'VE ACTUALLY RECEIVED, AND SO THAT WAY IT'S A TRULY FAIR SCORING. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| SO I'D LIKE TO -- IF THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS, I'D LIKE TO HAVE MEMBERS PUT THEIR PRELIMINARY SCORES IN. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: CHAIRMAN, IS THE NEXT APPLICATION 505? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I BELIEVE IT IS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: 505, I'M THE SECONDARY REVIEWER. THIS IS WHILE EVERYBODY IS DOING THEIR PRELIMINARY SCORES FOR THIS ONE. TO STAFF, I DID MINE AND SUBMITTED MY SCORES ONLINE. SO DO I HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF ME, WHAT I SUBMITTED ONLINE? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: NOT NECESSARILY. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I DON'T HAVE A LAPTOP, AND I NEED THAT IN FRONT OF ME. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THAT'S FINE. ANY OTHER MEMBERS THAT WOULD LIKE TO HAVE COPIES OF THEIR SCORING? IF THEY DON'T HAVE IT, FEEL FREE TO TALK TO PAT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU. YOU CAN GIVE ALL OF THEM TO ME NOW OR AS WE DO IT, BUT I WAS ASSIGNED 505. YOU HAVE THE LIST. NEVER MIND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO DO THE MEMBERS NEED ANY MORE TIME IN TERMS OF SCORING 504-1? WHY DON'T WE GIVE IT ONE MORE MINUTE. AND THEN, RICK, IS 505-1 THE NEXT APPLICATION? | ||||||||
| (MEMBER LANSING AND STAFF MEMBER HOFFMAN ARE RECUSED ON APPLICATION 505-1 AND ARE NOT PRESENT IN THE ROOM.) | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES. THAT'S THE NEXT ONE. THE PROPOSAL IS FOR $2 MILLION IN CIRM FUNDING FOR A SHARED LABORATORY. THE REVIEWERS ARE THE CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THE ONE STAFF ISSUE THAT WAS IDENTIFIED ON THIS APPLICATION WAS THAT THE AMOUNT OF CIRM FUNDING REQUESTED WAS $1 MILLION. THE CONSTRUCTION FUNDING FOR THE TOTAL PROJECT IS A MILLION FOUR SIXTY-SIX; HOWEVER, MATCHING FUNDS OF 321,726 WERE IDENTIFIED. ADDITIONAL PRIOR EXPENDITURES FOR EQUIPMENT WERE IDENTIFIED THAT WOULD ACTUALLY PUSH THE MATCHING FUNDS, CONSIDERING BOTH CASH AND FUNDS ALREADY EXPENDED FOR EQUIPMENT, ABOVE THE 20 PERCENT, BUT IT IS NOT -- WE SEE THAT THERE'S A BUDGET STRUCTURAL PROBLEM HERE IN THAT THE PROJECT IS ABOUT 145,000 SHORT OF CASH IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THE FULL SCOPE OF THE PROJECT IDENTIFIED IN THE APPLICATION. SO WE'VE IDENTIFIED THAT AS AN ELEMENT OF MATCHING FUNDS UNDER THE STAFF ISSUE. UNDER YOUR PREVIOUS PROCEDURE, WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU RESOLVE THAT BY ADOPTING THE REMEDY THAT CIRM SHOULD REQUIRE THAT THE APPLICANT IDENTIFY AN APPROPRIATE SOURCE OF MATCHING FUNDS WITH ADEQUATE ASSURANCE FOR PERFORMANCE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I WOULD MAKE THAT MOTION. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I'LL SECOND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BOB HAS MADE THE MOTION RECOMMENDING ACCEPTING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATION 505, SECONDED BY JANET WRIGHT. I'D LIKE TO HAVE A VOICE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY YES. ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY. IT'S UNANIMOUS. THIS MOTION IS CARRIED. | ||||||||
| SO I WILL DO THE PRIMARY REVIEW FOR THIS APPLICATION, AND THEN THE VICE CHAIR WILL DO THE SECONDARY. | ||||||||
| GIVE ME ONE MOMENT, PLEASE. SO THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD RENOVATE ABOUT 4700 ASSIGNABLE SQUARE FEET IN AN EXISTING RESEARCH BUILDING WHICH WOULD PROVIDE SHARED LABORATORY AND SUPPORT SPACE IN STEM CELL RESEARCH AS WELL AS AN ANALYTIC CORE LABORATORY, AN FDA COMPLIANT HUMAN STEM CELL GDP SUITE, AS WELL AS AN EXISTING GMP, GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICE, SUITE DEDICATED TO NEW HUMAN STEM CELL LINES. AND I THOUGHT THE PROPOSAL, THE GRANT APPLICATION WAS QUITE FEASIBLE. I DIDN'T NOTICE ANY ISSUES IN THE INFORMATION. SO THERE WAS NOTHING THAT JUMPED OUT AT ME. I THOUGHT IT SEEMED WELL PREPARED. | ||||||||
| THE COST SEEMED TO BE VERY GOOD TO EXCELLENT COMPARED TO THE OTHER REVIEWED GRANT APPLICATIONS. THERE WAS A FAIRLY HIGH LEVEL OF DETAIL PROVIDED REGARDING THE COSTS, WHICH WAS NOT NECESSARILY MY EXPERIENCE WITH OTHER GRANT APPLICATIONS. SO I THOUGHT THAT INCREASED MY -- NOT ONLY WAS THE PER-SQUARE-FOOT NUMBER EXCELLENT, BUT THE LEVEL OF DETAIL WAS QUITE GOOD AS WELL. | ||||||||
| THE SCHEDULE ALSO SEEMED TO BE VERY GOOD TO SOMEWHAT AGGRESSIVE. AGAIN, IT WASN'T UNREALISTICALLY AGGRESSIVE, BUT IT WAS AGGRESSIVE. AND I LIKED WHAT I SAW THERE. | ||||||||
| THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, YOU KNOW, WAS -- OVERALL COMMITMENT WAS QUITE HIGH. SO I THOUGHT THAT WAS GOOD. AND, AGAIN, WE'RE ASSUMING THAT, AGAIN, THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS ARE ACCEPTED. SO, AGAIN, THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, OVERALL COMMITMENT, SEEMED QUITE HIGH. SO THAT WOULD BE VERY GOOD TO EXCELLENT. | ||||||||
| THE HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE APPEARED TO BE AVERAGE TO SOMEWHAT ABOVE AVERAGE. THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, THREE PROJECTS THAT THEY UNDERTOOK, THAT SOME WERE BELOW BUDGET, SOME WERE OVER BUDGET, SOME WERE -- THEY SEEMED TO ALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN A MONTH OF COMPLETED SCHEDULE. SO I THOUGHT IT WAS, YOU KNOW, ABOVE AVERAGE WOULD BE THE WAY I WOULD CHARACTERIZE IT. | ||||||||
| IN TERMS OF THE PROPOSAL, IT SEEMED TO BE QUITE RESPONSIVE. SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IT SEEMED TO BE WELL PREPARED AND SEEMED TO ADDRESS THE RFA. | ||||||||
| SO I'D LIKE TO HAVE THE VICE CHAIR NOW, UNLESS THERE'S SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR ME REGARDING THE APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I SERVED AS THE SECONDARY REVIEWER FOR THIS APPLICATION 505. AND I HAVE TO SAY THAT MY COMMENTS AND AREA OF SCORING MIRRORS VERY SIMILARLY THAT OF THE CHAIR. I HAD NO MAJOR ISSUES WITH THE FEASIBILITY OF THE PLAN, NOR DID I SEE FROM THE REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION ANY SIGNIFICANT OBSTACLES THAT WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE PROJECT. THERE WAS A WELL-DISCUSSED, DETAILED PLAN ABOUT HOW THE MONEY WILL BE SPENT. SO I WAS HAPPY IN THE COST CATEGORY. | ||||||||
| SIMILAR COMMENTS IN THE TIMELINE AND MILESTONES. I LIKE THAT AFTER SEVEN MONTHS THAT THE PROJECT WOULD BE UP AND RUNNING AFTER THE AWARD. | ||||||||
| THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT SEEMS TO BE THERE AS WELL. THERE'S A 42-PERCENT MATCH. | ||||||||
| THE HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE, I ALSO HAD SOME ISSUES. IT SEEMED TO BE OKAY. I WOULD LIKE A LITTLE BIT MORE SOLID PERFORMANCE IN THIS AREA, BUT IT WASN'T LACKING IN ANY GLARING MANNER. | ||||||||
| OVERALL THE APPLICANT WAS RESPONSIVE TO THE RFA'S OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA. MY ONLY NOTE, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN RESOLVED BY THE MOTION, IS THE ADDITIONAL $150,000 NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT. SO BASED ON -- MY SCORING WILL REFLECT THAT MOTION. SO I WAS OVERALL PLEASED WITH THIS APPLICATION, AND WE'LL SEE HOW THINGS SHAKE DOWN, BUT INITIALLY I WOULD SAY FUND THIS APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I WOULD CONCUR WITH THE VICE CHAIR, THAT I WOULD, AGAIN, BASED UPON THE FACILITIES CRITERIA, THAT I WOULD FUND THIS APPLICATION. AGAIN, IT SEEMED TO BE WELL ABOVE AVERAGE IN MOST CATEGORIES. | ||||||||
| ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE MEMBERS FOR THE VICE CHAIR OR MYSELF? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: ARE COMMENTS IN ORDER? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES. COMMENTS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT WITH 43 PERCENT OF THE COST FOR CONSTRUCTION GOING INTO PLUMBING, HVAC, AND ELECTRICAL, THEY'VE GOT A REAL SUBSTANTIVE JOB HERE. AND FOR THE COST TO COME IN THAT LOW OVERALL, GIVEN A SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT IN HVAC, ELECTRICAL, AND PLUMBING, I THINK, IS REALLY EXCELLENT. | ||||||||
| AND ON THE HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE, SINCE THEY HAVE TO GUARANTEE TO US THAT THEY'RE GOING TO COMPLETE, AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY CHANGE ORDERS, UNLESS CHANGE ORDERS WERE A VERY HIGH PERCENTAGE THAT WOULD ACTUALLY JEOPARDIZE THEIR ABILITY TO PERFORM, I'M MORE CONCERNED ON THE ACTUAL TIMETABLE. AND ON ACTUAL COMPLETION OF THE HISTORICAL PROJECTS WAS ON TIME OR WITHIN ONE MONTH OF SCHEDULED COMPLETION. THAT'S PHENOMENAL IN THIS KIND OF FACILITY. | ||||||||
| SO I WAS EXTREMELY IMPRESSED WITH THIS HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE BECAUSE TIMELINE IS GOING TO BE MOST IMPORTANT TO US BECAUSE WE'RE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR A CHANGE ORDER IN TERMS OF PERFORMANCE. SO I WAS VERY IMPRESSED. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU, BOB. MS. HYSEN: DAVID, DID WE HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THIS REGARDING THE DEFICIENCY OF 145,000, OR WAS THAT DONE ALREADY? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WE DID IT ALREADY. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: NOT ENOUGH CAFFEINE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE VICE CHAIR OR MYSELF? AGAIN, I THINK, JUST TO CONCUR WITH BOB'S ASSESSMENT, IT SEEMED TO BE A VERY SUBSTANTIAL PROJECT, THAT THE COSTS WERE QUITE GOOD COMPARED TO OTHER APPLICATIONS, AND THEY WERE ACTUALLY ACHIEVING -- PROVIDING QUITE A BIT OF WHAT I WOULD ADD AS STRATEGIC KIND OF GOALS FOR THE STEM CELL INITIATIVE IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY WERE PROVIDING. THAT'S WHY, IN TERMS OF RESPONSIVE, I THOUGHT IT WAS QUITE RESPONSIVE. | ||||||||
| IF THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND PROCEED AND HAVE EVERYONE RECORD THEIR PRELIMINARY SCORE. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I THINK IT WAS THE SECOND HIGHEST IN TERMS OF PROVIDING SPACE FOR PI'S. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES, IT WAS. OKAY. I'LL GIVE EVERYONE ANOTHER MOMENT. RICK, THE NEXT APPLICATION WOULD BE 506-1. | ||||||||
| (MEMBER LANSING AND STAFF MEMBER HOFFMAN ARE RECUSED FROM APPLICATION 506-1 AND ARE NOT PRESENT IN THE ROOM.) | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES. 506-1, THE PRIMARY REVIEWER IS MEMBER HYSEN, SECONDARY REVIEWER MEMBER FEIT. THE REQUEST IS FOR 1,948,194 IN CIRM FUNDING. THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES JUST A SHARED LABORATORY AND NOT A TECHNIQUES COURSE. ON THE STAFF ANALYSIS WE HAVE TWO ISSUES IDENTIFIED, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST FOR DESIGN, ADMINISTRATION, AND CONTINGENCY EXCEEDS THE RFA GUIDELINES BY $84,000. THERE'S ALSO NOT A CLEAR, DEFINITIVE EXPLANATION OF COST OVERRUNS BEING COVERED BY THE APPLICANT. | ||||||||
| THIS IS IDENTIFIED IN THE STAFF ANALYSIS NARRATIVE, BUT I HAD UNFORTUNATELY NOT PUT IT INTO THE SUMMARY AT THE END. BUT THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THAT HAS THAT CIRCUMSTANCE. AND, THEREFORE, THE REMEDY FOR THAT IS TO INFORM THE APPLICANT THAT ANY COST ISSUES SHALL NOT RESULT IN REDUCED SCOPE AND WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS. THE FIRST WOULD BE CIRM SHOULD REDUCE ITS GRANT AMOUNT FOR UNALLOWABLE COSTS IDENTIFIED IN THE BUDGET, AND APPLICANT PROVIDES INSTITUTIONAL FUNDS FOR THESE UNALLOWABLE EXPENSES. DO I HAVE THAT MOTION? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: YOU DO. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I'LL SECOND THE MOTION IF DAVID IS MAKING THE MOTION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'M MAKING THE MOTION. IT'S SECONDED BY THE VICE CHAIR. SO I'D LIKE TO HAVE A VOICE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR ON THIS MOTION SAY YES. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? SO IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: DAVID, BEFORE YOU MAKE A SECOND MOTION, I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE STAFF ANALYSIS ON THE OVERRUN. IF I COULD REFER YOU TO PAGE 5, THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, THE LAST SENTENCE. IT APPEARS THAT THEY'VE MADE AN ALLOWANCE FOR THE COST OVERRUNS TO BE SHARED BY TWO OF ITS DIVISIONS. IS THAT NOT SUFFICIENT? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: ON PAGE 9? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: SECTION B-1, IT'S MY PAGE 5 OF THE RFA SUBMITTAL. ON THE LABORATORY RENOVATION PLAN, I THINK -- IT'S JUST THE FIRST PARAGRAPH. AND IT'S THE LAST SENTENCE. AND I CAN'T SAY WHO IT IS BECAUSE IT WOULD IDENTIFY THE INSTITUTION, BUT IT DOES SAY INCREASED CONSTRUCTION COSTS BEYOND THOSE FUNDED IN THE GRANT WILL BE SHARED EQUALLY BY X AN X. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I THINK THAT THAT MAY BE A JUDGMENT IN TERMS OF WE HAVE THE PROGRAM DIRECTOR SIGNING THE APPLICATION. AND, AGAIN, IT'S KIND OF IF -- I DON'T KNOW IF THOSE -- WHAT THE RESOURCES WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THOSE TWO. IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT THEY COULD CLARIFY IN THIS -- | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: THAT'S WHAT CONFUSED ME. IF THE INSTITUTION IS SAYING IN ITS SUBMITTAL THAT THEY ARE GOING TO COVER THE COSTS, I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN, AS A REVIEWER, QUALIFY WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S A TRUTHFUL STATEMENT. SO I WOULD FEEL THAT THEY MET THE GUARANTEE OF COST OVERRUNS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO, DEBORAH. BOB.MR. KLEIN: I WOULD SUPPORT DEBORAH'S POSITION BECAUSE THIS IS A MAJOR INSTITUTION WITH FINANCIAL CAPACITY THAT'S CLEAR WHO'S MAKING A COMMITMENT TO SHARE THOSE ADDITIONAL COSTS. SO I THINK WE HAVE A CLEAR STATEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE IN SOME OF THE OTHERS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK COUNSEL, TAMAR, IF THERE'S ANY -- THERE'S NO REASON TO HAVE A CLARIFICATION ON THIS AND CARRY THE MOTION. THERE'S NO NEGATIVE EFFECT. AND THAT WAY WE'RE DEALING WITH ALL THE APPLICATIONS THE SAME, CORRECT? | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: THAT'S RIGHT. IF ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP ARE READING THIS THE SAME WAY, THERE ARE WAYS TO CLARIFY THAT IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS AS WELL TO MAKE SURE THAT, IN FACT, EVERYBODY IS ON THE SAME PAGE ABOUT -- | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: THEY WON'T GET THIS INFORMATION THAT I HAVE, I DON'T BELIEVE. IS THAT TRUE? THE ANALYSIS WOULDN'T SHOW THIS SPECIFIC SENTENCE? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I DON'T HAVE A COPY OF THE FULL APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: RIGHT. I THINK ALL THE REVIEWERS ARE GETTING THE STAFF SYNOPSIS. IF THEY WERE TO GO BY THAT WHEN MAKING THEIR SCORE, THEY WOULD HAVE THAT INFORMATION AND NOT NECESSARILY THE INFORMATION THAT I HAD ACCESS TO AS A PRIMARY REVIEWER. | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: THAT MAY BE TRUE. I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS IF EVERYBODY'S UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THAT CONDITION OF THE RFA HAS BEEN MET, THAT THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO COVER COST OVERRUNS. THERE ARE WAYS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS THAT WE CAN CONFIRM THAT SO THE APPLICANT UNDERSTANDS THAT'S WHERE THE ICOC IS ON THE ISSUE, THAT WE BELIEVE THEY'VE AGREED TO COVER THOSE COSTS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I GUESS I WOULD ASK STAFF, SHOULD WE GO TO ANOTHER APPLICATION WHILE STAFF -- RICK, IS YOUR FEELING THAT THIS ISSUE IS ADDRESSED IN THEIR RESPONSE? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I THINK IT'S A JUDGMENT. IF YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT THAT'S SUFFICIENT ON THE BASIS OF THE INSTITUTION, THAT'S CERTAINLY UP TO YOU. IT BECOMES -- AS TAMAR WAS SAYING, IT JUST BECOMES SOMETHING THAT'S WITHIN THE DUE DILIGENCE THAT WE WOULD HAVE ON THE GRANT ADMINISTRATION. AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO -- MY BAR MIGHT HAVE BEEN TOO HIGH HERE, I THINK. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, RICK. DEBORAH, I GUESS BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION IN FRONT OF ME AND I DON'T SEE THAT -- UNLESS -- I'LL OPEN THIS UP TO DISCUSSION IF THERE'S ANY. I DON'T SEE ANY NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES TO HAVING THIS MOTION PASS. SO IF THERE AREN'T ANY NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES, I'D LIKE TO PROCEED WITH THE VOTE ON THIS. | ||||||||
| WE DON'T HAVE A MOTION YET? SO I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE THE MOTION THAT CIRM SHOULD INFORM THE APPLICANT THAT ANY COST ISSUES SHALL NOT RESULT IN REDUCED SCOPE, AND THE INSTITUTION WILL GUARANTEE ANY COST OVERRUNS. DO I HAVE A SECOND? | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: SECOND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: JANET WRIGHT SECONDS. I'D LIKE TO HAVE A VOICE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY YES. ANY OPPOSED? EXCELLENT. | ||||||||
| SO THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO ISSUES, CORRECT, STAFF ISSUES? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES, THAT'S CORRECT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DEBORAH, IF YOU COULD PROCEED TO DO THE PRIMARY REVIEW ON THIS APPLICATION. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: IN THE FUTURE WHAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL IS, PARTICULARLY WHEN THERE ARE DIFFERENT DIVISIONS OR SCHOOLS WITHIN THESE UNIVERSITIES PROVIDING THE MATCH, IT WOULD BE NICE THAT THEY WOULD BE A SIGNATORY TO THE SIGNATORY PAGE BECAUSE I COULDN'T TELL IF EITHER ONE OF THOSE SCHOOLS OR DIVISIONS ACTUALLY COMMITTED TO IT. JUST FOR FUTURE REFERENCE. | ||||||||
| I FOUND THIS GRANT TO BE THE MOST RESPONSIVE OF ALL THE APPLICATIONS I REVIEWED. AND ABSOLUTE KUDOS TO WHOEVER PREPARED THIS. IT WAS VERY, VERY THOROUGH. IT LEFT ME WITH NO QUESTIONS. IT WASN'T MY HIGHEST RANKED APPLICATION BECAUSE THE COST WAS QUITE SIGNIFICANT, BUT I FELT THAT IT DID THIS INSTITUTION PROUD. LET ME JUST SAY SO. WHOEVER THE GRANT WRITER IS OUT THERE, KUDOS TO YOU. | ||||||||
| THIS IS A REMODEL OF AN EXISTING SPACE. IT'S ABOUT 2,000 SQUARE FEET. AND THEY'VE CLEARLY OUTLINED ALL OF THE ISSUES FACING THEM. AND LET ME JUST SAY THAT THIS INSTITUTE IN PARTICULAR DID, OF ALL THE APPLICATIONS, DID PROVIDE SOME INFORMATION THAT NONE OF OTHERS DID. THEY DID COMMIT TO PREVAILING WAGE, THEY DID COMMIT TO PROVIDING A PREFERENCE TO CALIFORNIA SERVICES AND GOODS PROVIDERS. I WAS VERY IMPRESSED WITH THAT. AND THEY WENT ABOVE AND BEYOND AND COMMITTED TO BUILDING THIS IN A GREEN BUILDING MANNER, WHICH USES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE BUSINESS PRACTICES. AND BECAUSE THE OVERALL INTENT OF PROP 71 IS TO IMPROVE THE PUBLIC HEALTH OF CALIFORNIANS, I FELT LIKE THAT WAS ABOVE AND BEYOND. AND I DON'T KNOW IF OTHER INSTITUTIONS DID THAT AS WELL. BUT THEY EVEN COMMITTED TO, IN THEIR SHARED FACILITIES, MAKING SURE THAT IT WAS LOCATED NEXT TO TRANSIT SO THAT ITS SCIENTISTS AND OTHERS COULD COME AND USE PUBLIC TRANSIT. | ||||||||
| SO THIS IS ONE OF THOSE REALLY GOOD SUBMITTALS THAT REALLY DEMONSTRATED THAT IT HAD THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN MIND. | ||||||||
| FEASIBILITY-WISE, I FELT THAT THEY REALLY UNDERSTOOD ALL OF THE OBSTACLES BEFORE THEM. THEY CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THEY HAD TO GO THROUGH THE STATE ARCHITECTS REVIEW PROCESS, WHICH CAN GET LENGTHY, STATE FIRE MARSHAL AS WELL. AND THAT THEY DO HAVE TO EXPAND MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, AND PLUMBING SYSTEMS. SO I GAVE THEM A VERY HIGH FEASIBILITY SCORE. | ||||||||
| ON THE COSTS, YOU WILL SEE IN YOUR SPREADSHEET THAT IT IS ONE OF THE MORE SIGNIFICANT COSTS. IT'S UPWARDS OF THE REPLACEMENT VALUE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED AS $600. IT'S VERY CLOSE TO THAT. AND QUITE FRANKLY -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: EXCUSE ME, DEBORAH. COULD I JUST JUMP IN? ONE CLARIFICATION. IT LOOKS LIKE AFTER YOU GROSS THAT NUMBER, IT BECOMES 359 PER SQUARE FOOT GROSS. IS THAT CORRECT, RICK? I THINK THE NUMBER THAT HAS BEEN USED BY STAFF IS 600 PER SQUARE FOOT GROSS. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THE ASSIGNABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE, COST PER ASSIGNABLE FOOT WAS 598. AND THEN I THINK ON AN EQUIVALENCY TO NEW CONSTRUCTION, IT WOULD BE 359, SO THAT WOULD BE ABOUT 60 PERCENT OF NEW CONSTRUCTION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: JUST ONE FURTHER CLARIFICATION. I JUST WANT TO HAVE FOR ALL THE MEMBERS, BECAUSE THIS ACTUALLY WAS SOMETHING I DISCUSSED WITH STAFF EARLIER, ON THIS COMPARISON SHEET, WHICH EVERYONE HOPEFULLY SHOULD HAVE, THE COST PER SQUARE FOOT ARE ASSIGNABLE, YET IN THE STAFF SUMMARY AND AS WELL AS IN THE APPLICATIONS, YOU WILL SEE ASSIGNABLE AND GROSS. IT'S JUST IMPORTANT WHEN YOU'RE COMPARING, THAT YOU'RE COMPARING THE SAME NUMBERS. SORRY, DEBORAH. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. WHAT I WASN'T CLEAR ABOUT -- WELL, IT DOES REPRESENT ONE OF THE HIGHER ASSIGNABLE PER SQUARE FOOT OF ALL THE APPLICATIONS. BUT WHAT I WASN'T CLEAR ABOUT IS BECAUSE I HAD NO CONFIRMATION THAT THE OTHER APPLICANTS DID CONSIDER PREVAILING WAGE, DID CONSIDER THE CALIFORNIA PREFERENCE, AND DID CONSIDER THINGS LIKE GREEN BUILDING DESIGN, THAT THEY HAVE INCORPORATED THOSE THINGS AND PERHAPS THE OTHERS HAD NOT. SO I FELT THAT THEIR COST, WHILE IN THE HIGH RANGE OF THE APPLICANTS, DEFINITELY SEEMED TO INCLUDE ALL OF THE THINGS THAT THEY NEEDED TO DO INCLUDE TO SATISFY THE RFA AND PROP 71. | ||||||||
| ONE THING THAT I FELT REALLY DEMONSTRATED THEIR COMMITMENT, BUT IT DOES SHOW UP IN THE COST CATEGORY, IS THAT THEY'RE JUMP STARTING THE CONSTRUCTION IN ANTICIPATION OF THE FUNDS. SO I FELT THAT THAT REALLY SHOWS THAT THEY'RE COMMITTED TO STEM CELL RESEARCH IRREGARDLESS OF OBTAINING THESE FUNDS. BECAUSE OF THAT, THEY ACTUALLY ARE GOING TO GET A JUMP START ON THEIR TIMELINES. BUT FROM A COST STANDPOINT, I RATED THEM IN THE MID TO MID HIGH RANGE, GOOD TO SOMEWHAT EXCELLENT JUST BECAUSE I FELT THAT THEIR COSTS WERE VERY COMPREHENSIVE. THEY HAD A VERY COMPREHENSIVE SET OF PLANS. | ||||||||
| INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, I THINK THIS IS THE ONE THAT JUST MET THE 20-PERCENT REQUIREMENT; IS THAT TRUE? OKAY. AND I RATED THEM AT THE HIGH RANGE JUST BECAUSE I FELT THAT THE WAY THE RFA WAS WRITTEN, IT WAS SIMPLY TO ASK WHETHER OR NOT THEY MET THE MATCHING REQUIREMENT. I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE SCORED THIS ONE PERHAPS A LITTLE BIT LOWER IN COMPARISON TO THE OTHERS THAT ARE BRINGING THESE HIGH MATCHES, BUT I FELT THAT THE RFA LIMITED ME TO STRICTLY MEETING THE 20-PERCENT REQUIREMENT. | ||||||||
| HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE, I FELT THAT THEY WERE VERY GOOD IN THIS AREA. THEY LISTED SOME PROJECTS THAT WERE VERY COMPARABLE TO WHAT THEY'RE DOING. VERY SHORT TIMEFRAMES FOR THESE PROJECTS. VERY LITTLE CHANGE ORDERS. VERY CLOSE TO BUDGET. SO I FELT THAT THEY HAD REALLY DONE A GOOD JOB THERE IN THE PAST, BUT THEY ALSO MENTIONED THE STAFF THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THIS. AND I THINK THEY MENTIONED THE ENGINEER THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THIS. SO THEY DID DESCRIBE SOME OF THE STAFF THAT HAVE HAD EXPERIENCE IN THERE, AND I FELT THAT THAT WOULD REALLY BODE WELL FOR THE FUTURE OF THIS. I GAVE THEM A LOW HIGH SCORE. THE LOW SIDE OF EXCELLENT. | ||||||||
| RESPONSIVENESS, I GAVE THEM THE HIGHEST SCORE OF ALL THE ENTITIES I SCORED JUST BECAUSE I FELT LIKE THEY MET THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFA AND THEN MADE SURE THEY INCORPORATED THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN THE PROPOSITION AS WELL AS ADDING TO IT SUCH AS GREEN BUILDING DESIGN AND PUBLIC TRANSIT AND OTHER THINGS THAT ARE QUALITATIVE. SO THERE'S NO ABILITY TO RANK THEM NECESSARILY, BUT I THINK THEY JUST ENHANCED THE OVERALL PROJECT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU, DEBORAH. COULD YOU JUST CLARIFY YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE TIMELINE AGAIN? THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: I WOULD ASSUME AT THIS JUNCTURE THEY HAVE STARTED THIS PROJECT BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE WAY THE APPLICATION WAS WRITTEN THAT THEY HAD OR WERE STARTING THIS PROJECT AT THIS POINT IN TIME. | ||||||||
| IT'S MY BELIEF THAT IT'S ACTUALLY STARTED. I THINK THEIR TIMELINE WAS MARCH. | ||||||||
| THE PAYOFF IS THAT IT'S AN ACCELERATED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE. AND SO THEY ANTICIPATED SEVEN MONTHS OF CONSTRUCTION, MAY OF '08, WHICH A LOT OF MY APPLICATIONS WERE JULY. SO THIS WAS REALLY, I THOUGHT, PRETTY AGGRESSIVE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU. MARCY, YOU'RE THE SECONDARY REVIEWER ON THE APPLICATION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE PRIMARY REVIEWER FIRST? | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: THIS WAS A VERY COMPREHENSIVE WRITTEN APPLICATION. THEY WENT INTO GREAT DETAIL ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO AND EVEN POINTED OUT THAT THEY HAD USED AN INDEPENDENT ESTIMATOR TO HELP BASE THEIR BUDGET ON, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE GOLD STANDARDS OF HOW TO PUT A MAJOR PROJECT TOGETHER. SO I THOUGHT IT WAS -- THEY ADDRESSED THEIR CONTINGENCIES, SPECIFICALLY WHAT THEY WERE AND HOW MUCH. | ||||||||
| IN TERMS OF THE PROJECT TIMELINES, THEY WENT INTO A GREAT DEAL OF DISCUSSION AROUND THE SCHEDULE, WHEN THEY WOULD AWARD CONTRACTS, WHEN THEY WOULD GO OUT TO BID, HOW MANY WEEKS IT WOULD TAKE, SO A GREAT DEAL OF ATTENTION TO HOW THEY WERE GOING TO ACTUALLY PROCEED AND HOW THEY WOULD GET TO MAY OF 2008. SO I HAD A HIGH DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE AROUND THE FEASIBILITY OF THIS PROJECT. I GAVE THEM A 15. | ||||||||
| I GAVE THEM A 19 ON COST. WHILE I THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS JUST SO MUCH INFORMATION HERE, IT WAS HARD TO DECIPHER, BUT I GUESS I WAS KIND OF CLOUDED BY SOME OF THE OVERRUN DISCUSSION EARLIER. SO I GAVE THEM A 19, WHICH IS STILL A VERY HIGH CONFIDENCE LEVEL. WHEN YOU READ THE DETAIL AND HOW THEY PUT THEIR BUDGET TOGETHER AND HOW THE INDEPENDENT ESTIMATOR AND THE CONTINGENCY ALLOWANCES, THEY REALLY THOUGHT EVERYTHING THROUGH. SO I HAD A HIGH DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE ON THE COST SIDE OF IT, AND I GAVE THEM A 19. | ||||||||
| IN TERMS OF TIMELINESS AND MILESTONES, I GAVE THEM AN 18 BECAUSE, AGAIN, THEY HAVE A VERY DETAILED DISCUSSION ABOUT THEIR SCHEDULE, HOW THEY'RE GOING TO PROCEED WITH THE PROCESS, OUTLINED HOW THEY'RE GOING TO GET TO MAY 8TH. AND I THINK IT WAS VERY AGGRESSIVE AND COMMENDABLE, SO I GAVE THEM AN 18. | ||||||||
| IN TERMS OF INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, I GAVE THEM A 20, AND I DID THAT BECAUSE, AGAIN, I WAS IMPRESSED BY THE FACT THAT THEY WERE WILLING TO GO ON RISK. THEY'RE GOING TO START PRELIMINARY PLANNING FOR THE PROJECT WHEN THEY SUBMITTED THEIR APPLICATION FOR THIS GRANT. AND SO I THINK THEY'RE BEING VERY AGGRESSIVE TO SAY WE'RE COMMITTED HERE AND WE'RE GOING TO MOVE AHEAD, AND WE WANT TO DO THIS PROJECT. SO I WAS VERY IMPRESSED WITH THE DISCUSSION OF THEIR COMMITMENT. | ||||||||
| IN TERMS OF THEIR HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE, HOWEVER, I WAS NOT SO PLEASED WITH THAT. AND THE REASON IS THERE WAS A DEGREE OF VARIABILITY IN HOW THEY MANAGE THEIR PROJECTS. THEIR CHANGE ORDERS WENT ANYWHERE FROM THREE TO 28. THE ONE PROJECT THAT HAD 28 CHANGE ORDERS, WHILE THE AMOUNT THAT WAS REALIZED THROUGH THOSE CHANGE ORDERS WAS SMALL, AND SO THERE WAS PROBABLY A LOT OF LITTLE THINGS, BUT THE ONE PROJECT THAT HAD THREE CHANGE ORDERS, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WAS INVOLVED WAS $189,000 PLUS. SO I FELT LIKE THEIR HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE WASN'T QUITE THE GOLD STANDARD THAT I SAW IN SOME OTHER GRANTS, BUT I GAVE THEM A SIX ON THAT. | ||||||||
| IN TERMS OF RESPONSIVENESS, I GAVE THEM A 15. AGAIN, THIS WAS AN EXTREMELY WELL-DONE APPLICATION. THE DRAWINGS ARE VERY DETAILED AND EASY TO SEE WHAT WAS GOING TO GO ON. THEY HAD SPREADSHEETS FOR THEIR BUDGET, AND IT WAS JUST A VERY WELL RESPONSIVE APPLICATION. SO I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND THIS FOR FUNDING. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, MARCY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE PRELIMINARY OR SECONDARY REVIEWER? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THOUGHT DEBORAH'S POINT WAS A VERY GOOD ONE ON GETTING ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS GOING FORWARD IN OUR MAJOR FACILITIES SUBMISSIONS, BUT RATHER THAN HAVE INDIVIDUAL DIVISIONS THAT ARE COMMITTING TO OVERRUNS SIGNING ON THE APPLICATION, WHICH WOULD MEAN THEY ENDORSE THE ENTIRE APPLICATION, WHICH THEY MAY NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER, I'D SUGGEST THAT WE TRY AND GET SOME DOCUMENTARY LETTER FROM THEM FOR THE FILE INDICATING THEIR SPECIFIC COMMITMENT TO THE PARTICULAR ITEM THAT THEY ARE EVIDENCING IN THE OVERALL FILE. | ||||||||
| THE OTHER THING THAT I WOULD SAY HERE IS THAT BOTH REVIEWS HERE WERE REALLY OUTSTANDING IN PROBING THE DEPTH OF RESPONSIVENESS HERE. SO I THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE EXTREMELY RESPONSIVE AND GAVE THEM A VERY HIGH SCORE IN THAT, EXTREMELY HIGH SCORE. | ||||||||
| BUT IN INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, EVEN THOUGH THEY'VE GONE THROUGH AND DONE A LOT OF GREAT THINGS, I GAVE THEM A HIGH SCORE, BUT NOT THE HIGHEST BECAUSE TO GET THE HIGHEST SCORE, I THOUGHT THEY SHOULD SHOW SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN THE MINIMUM MATCH. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU, BOB. SO IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, I'D LIKE EVERYONE TO PUT THEIR INITIAL SCORE FOR APPLICATION 506. SO NEXT APPLICATION WILL BE 507. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: IF IT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE COMMITTEE, THIS WOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO BREAK FOR LUNCH. YOU WANT TO KEEP GOING? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO TRY GET TEN DONE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: AS LONG AS WE CAN MAKE SURE THE LOGISTICS WORK, WE'LL GO. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK WE'RE MAKING GOOD PROGRESS. SO NEXT APPLICATION WOULD BE 507-1, WHICH LOOKS LIKE STAFF HAS ONE COMMENT, CORRECT, RICK, IN TERMS OF FINANCIAL ISSUES? | ||||||||
| (MEMBER LANSING IS RECUSED FROM APPLICATION 507-1 AND IS NOT PRESENT IN THE ROOM.) | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES. 507, PRIMARY REVIEWER IS MEMBER LICHTENGER, THE CHAIR, AND SECONDARY REVIEWER IS JEFF SHEEHY. THE REQUEST IS 1,983,000 FOR CIRM FUNDING. THE REQUEST IS FOR JUST A SHARED LABORATORY. THE STAFF ISSUE DEALS WITH THE COST OVERRUN, AND I BELIEVE THIS IS ANOTHER CASE WHERE I WANT TO ADVISE YOU OF THE BAR THAT WE USED IN TERMS OF THE VERBIAGE AND HOW WELL IT EITHER RESPONDS OR DOES NOT RESPOND TO ISSUES OF COST OVERRUNS. | ||||||||
| IN THIS CASE THERE IS A STATEMENT THAT THE OVERRUNS WOULD BE MANAGED IN SUCH A FASHION NOT TO GO OVER BUDGET, AND THAT MODIFICATIONS WOULD BE THE REMOVAL OF EITHER THE SMALLER TISSUE CULTURE ROOM OR THE ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT ROOM FROM THE SCOPE OF WORK. | ||||||||
| AND IN OUR JUDGMENT, IF THE GRANT THAT'S BEING APPROVED BY YOU ON THE BASIS OF A PARTICULAR SCOPE OF WORK, THEN WE THINK THERE HAS TO BE INTEGRITY TO THAT SCOPE OF WORK ON THE BASIS OF THE MONEY BEING REQUESTED. SO ON THAT BASIS, WE DID NOT BELIEVE THAT IT WAS RESPONSIVE TO THE COST OVERRUN COMMITMENT. SO THAT WOULD APPLY -- THAT PROCEDURE FOR COST OVERRUN WOULD APPLY TO THIS APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO, RICK, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT CIRM SHOULD INFORM THE APPLICANT THAT ANY COST OVERRUNS SHALL NOT RESULT IN THE REDUCED SCOPE, AND THE INSTITUTION WILL GUARANTEE TO COVER ANY OF THOSE COST OVERRUNS. DO I HAVE A SECOND? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: SECOND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: JEFF SHEEHY WILL BE THE SECOND. I'D LIKE TO HAVE A VOICE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE -- DISCUSSION. SORRY, JEFF. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: JUST VERY BRIEFLY, AND I SUPPORT THE MOTION. I WAS ACTUALLY -- I WAS THE SECONDARY REVIEWER ON THIS, AND I THINK MY CONCERN ON THIS WAS THE SAME AS DEBORAH'S. IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPLICATED THAN RICK'S. WHAT THEY DID IS THEY ACTUALLY HAVE A SIGNED LETTER FROM A -- TO COVER UP TO 7 PERCENT OF PROJECT COSTS IN CASE OF OVERRUNS. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY. I ACTUALLY FOUND THAT A STRENGTH IN MY REVIEW, AND I ACTUALLY -- SO THAT WHEN I MAKE THAT POINT LATER ON, I DON'T WANT TO SOUND LIKE I'M A NUT CASE BECAUSE WE'VE JUST SAID THAT THEY DIDN'T DO IT. WHAT THEY DID IS IDENTIFY 7 PERCENT. IF YOU LOOK AT THEIR HISTORICAL -- I'LL GET INTO IT IN THE REVIEW. | ||||||||
| I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT, THAT IT WASN'T JUST THAT THEY WERE GOING TO CUT BACK ON THE SCOPE. THEY ACTUALLY IDENTIFIED UP TO 7 PERCENT, A GUARANTOR FOR UP TO 7 PERCENT OF COST OVERRUN. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SEVEN OR 77? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: SO 7 PERCENT, A GUARANTOR FOR 7 PERCENT OF COST OVERRUN. AND IF THEY WENT OVER THAT, THEN THEY WERE GOING TO TALK ABOUT CUTTING BACK ON SPACE, BUT I DO SUPPORT THE MOTION. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: IS THAT 7 PERCENT PLUS THE 10-PERCENT CONTINGENCY? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: IT IS THE CONTINGENCY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THAT IS THE CONTINGENCY. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: THAT IS THE CONTINGENCY. SO DOES THAT NEGATE THE CONTINGENCY THEN? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: NO. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: WHAT'S THE EXTRA 3 PERCENT THEN? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DEBORAH, SO I THINK WHAT, IF I RECALL, BECAUSE I WAS THE PRIMARY REVIEWER, THAT THEY COMMITTED TO ONLY COVER THE 7 PERCENT. I THINK THAT'S THE ISSUE THAT STAFF HAD AND I ACTUALLY HAD. JEFF, I UNDERSTOOD THAT YOU SAW THAT AS A POSITIVE. I SAW IT AS A LESS THAN FULL COMMITMENT THAT I WOULD HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR. AND, AGAIN, I SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. AND I'D LIKE TO, IF IT'S OKAY WITH EVERYONE, TO GO AHEAD -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: CALL THE QUESTION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: -- WITH THE VOTE ON THIS MOTION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SO THE MOTION PASSES FOR 507. | ||||||||
| SO I AM THE PRIMARY REVIEWER, SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND DO THAT NOW. | ||||||||
| SO FIRST OF ALL, IN TERMS OF FEASIBILITY, THE PROJECT SEEMED FEASIBLE. THERE WERE NO MAJOR ISSUES THAT I HAD WITH THE APPLICATION. THEY WERE GOING TO BE CONVERTING SOME EXISTING SPACE PREVIOUSLY USED AS A VIVARIUM FOR USE AS A SHARED RESEARCH LAB SUITE WITH FOUR TISSUE CULTURE ROOMS, FIVE EQUIPMENT ROOMS, STORAGE ROOM, AND OFFICE SPACE. | ||||||||
| THE APPLICATION HAD DOCUMENTATION ON THE GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK, AND IT HAD SOME DETAIL IN TERMS OF THE PLANNED RENOVATIONS OF THE SPACE. AGAIN, I DIDN'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THE FEASIBILITY AT ALL. | ||||||||
| THE COSTS SEEMED TO BE AVERAGE COMPARED TO THE OTHER REVIEWED GRANT APPLICATIONS. THERE WAS NO DETAILED COST ESTIMATES IN TERMS OF HOW THEY WERE PROVIDED IN THE RESPONSE. SO I WOULD HAVE LOOKED AND LIKED TO SEE A LOT MORE DETAIL IN TERMS OF HOW THEY CAME UP WITH THEIR NUMBERS. | ||||||||
| THE TIMELINE AND MILESTONES WERE GOOD, DEFINITELY ABOVE AVERAGE. I CHARACTERIZE THEM AS DEFINITELY GOOD. | ||||||||
| THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT SEEMED TO BE AVERAGE TO SOMEWHAT BELOW AVERAGE IN MY ESTIMATE. YOU KNOW, THEY HAD 24 PERCENT. SO I MEAN THEY MET THE MINIMUM, BUT I FELT THEY COULD HAVE DONE BETTER. AND SO THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE SEEN MORE COMMITMENT ON THEIR PART. | ||||||||
| IN TERMS OF THE HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE, YOU KNOW, I WAS SOMEWHAT DISAPPOINTED IN THIS AREA. YOU KNOW, IT WAS OKAY; BUT, AGAIN, IT COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER. I WOULD CHARACTERIZE IT AS AVERAGE TO SOMEWHAT BELOW AVERAGE. THEY WERE HIGHER IN SOME CASES, AND THEY WERE DEFINITELY BEHIND SCHEDULE ON SOME. NOW, THEY WERE AHEAD ON ONE PROJECT. SO, AGAIN, I WOULDN'T CHARACTERIZE THEIR HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE AS REALLY PROBLEMATIC. I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S GOOD TO EXCELLENT. | ||||||||
| AND THE RESPONSIVENESS I THOUGHT, AGAIN, OVERALL RESPONSIVENESS WAS QUITE GOOD. I DIDN'T HAVE ANY MAJOR CONCERNS. IT WAS PUT TOGETHER WELL. AND, AGAIN, I WOULD GIVE IT A GOOD TO VERY GOOD IN TERMS OF MY RATING OF IT. | ||||||||
| ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS BEFORE JEFF DOES THE SECONDARY REVIEW? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: AND SORRY FOR THAT EARLIER BIT. YOU KNOW, IT HELPS TO UNDERSTAND SOME OF THIS. I WAS JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY THAT. AND THE FACT THAT THEY CAME IN UNDER WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN, IT'S VERY HELPFUL TO KNOW THAT. SO THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| SO I SCORED THIS AT 86. AND I FELT THAT -- LET ME START AT THE TOP HERE. IT SEEMED LIKE VERY FEASIBLE. I AGREE WITH DAVID'S COMMENTS ON FEASIBILITY. | ||||||||
| COSTS, AGAIN, IT WAS NOT THE LOWEST IN MY GROUP, SO I RATED IT JUST ABOUT AVERAGE FOR COST. BUT IT'S IN A HIGH COST AREA, SO I DO THINK THAT THAT MITIGATES AGAINST SOME OF THE COST. AVERAGE TO ABOVE AVERAGE, RIGHT ON THE CUSP. I GAVE IT A 14 ON COST.TIMELINE AND MILESTONES, IT SEEMED REASONABLE. I GAVE IT 18 FOR THAT. | ||||||||
| INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, I GAVE 18 JUST BECAUSE THEY MET THE MINIMUM. AND I DIDN'T WANT TO PENALIZE THEM FOR -- I GENERALLY, IF THEY HAD A SUBSTANTIAL COMMITMENT, WENT ALONG WITH THAT. | ||||||||
| HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE, I'VE KIND OF DOWNGRADED THAT BECAUSE OF WHAT I'VE JUST HEARD HERE TO ABOUT A FIVE. THOUGH I WOULD NOTE THEY DID HAVE ONE PROJECT THAT CAME IN SIGNIFICANTLY UNDER COST. AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT'S A GOOD SIGN OR A BAD SIGN. THEY COULD ACTUALLY -- I BELIEVE 20 PERCENT UNDER COST, WHICH MAY BE AS MUCH OF A PROBLEM AS A GOOD THING. | ||||||||
| AND THEN I GAVE IT A 15 FOR RESPONSIVENESS. I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY RESPONSIVE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, JEFF. DO THE MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PRIMARY OR SECONDARY REVIEWER ON THIS APPLICATION? I'D LIKE TO ALLOW EVERYONE A MOMENT TO COMPLETE THEIR SCORING. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: JUST AS A PREVIEW, CHAIRMAN, I THINK AFTER THIS NEXT ONE, WHICH IS 508, WE'LL THEN BREAK FOR LUNCH. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THIS WOULD BE OUR EIGHTH? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: NO. I THINK WE'VE DONE EIGHT. IF WE DO ONE MORE, IT WILL BE NINE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: HE'S SUGGESTING A COMPROMISE. VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: IT'S UP TO THE CHAIRMAN. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'M FLEXIBLE ON THIS ISSUE. WE CAN POLL THE MEMBERS. ARE PEOPLE GETTING HUNGRY? SO WHY DON'T WE DO ONE MORE AND THEN WE'LL TAKE A BREAK. EXCELLENT COMPROMISE. | ||||||||
| APPLICATION 508. | ||||||||
| (MEMBER LANSING AND STAFF MEMBER HOFFMAN ARE RECUSED ON APPLICATION 508 AND ARE NOT PRESENT IN THE ROOM.) | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: APPLICATION 508 IS A REQUEST FOR 1,978,535 IN CIRM FUNDING. IT INVOLVES A SHARED LABORATORY PROJECT ONLY. AND THE PRIMARY REVIEWER IS MEMBER KASHIAN, THE SECONDARY REVIEWER IS VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL. THERE ARE ACTUALLY THREE ISSUES THAT WE IDENTIFIED IN THE STAFF ANALYSIS. | ||||||||
| ON MATCHING FUNDS, WE IDENTIFIED THE FACT THAT THERE ARE PORTIONS OF THE MATCHING FUNDS THAT ARE NOT RELATED TO EITHER PRIOR EXPENDITURES FOR EQUIPMENT OR FOR SIMILAR RENOVATION PROJECTS. THIS REALLY RELATES TO THE FACT THAT THERE'S SUPPLIES AND COSTS OF STEM CELL LINES CITED, WHICH ARE BASICALLY SUPPLIES ON THESE OTHER PROJECTS. | ||||||||
| SECONDLY, RELATED TO THE MATCH IS THERE IS AN EXPECTATION THAT FUNDING PROVIDED BY THE INSTITUTION FOR FUTURE RECRUITMENT WOULD RISE TO A LEVEL SUCH THAT IT COULD BE CITED AS A MATCH. WE, AGAIN, DON'T SEE THAT AS BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE RFA, STATING THAT IT NEEDS TO BE A SIMILAR PROJECT OR EQUIPMENT FUNDING SINCE JANUARY OF '05. SO THAT WOULD BE THE MATCHING ISSUE. | ||||||||
| AND THEN WE WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT THE SAME ISSUE YOU'VE DEALT WITH BEFORE ON THE OVERRUNS WHERE THERE'S AN ISSUE CITED THAT THE SOLUTION TO COST OVERRUNS WOULD INVOLVE A POTENTIAL REDUCTION IN PROJECT SCOPE, WE WOULD, THEREFORE, TO BE CONSISTENT WITH YOUR PREVIOUS PROCEDURES, SUGGEST MOTIONS ON BOTH MATCHING FUNDS AND THE OVERRUN ISSUE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: MR. KELLER, A QUESTION ON THE MATCHING FUND QUESTION. THE APPLICATION, AS I READ IT, SAID THAT THEIR MATCHING GRANT WAS $880,392? I THINK THAT'S CORRECT. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: LET ME FIND IT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: SURE. THIS GOES TO THE ISSUES THAT YOU RAISED, THE ISSUE THAT STAFF RAISED. POINT NO. 2 IS WHAT I'M SORT OF GETTING AT. THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT THAT WAS REPRESENTED IN THE APPLICATION IS $880,392. AND THE PI THAT THEY HAVEN'T YET HIRED, WHICH IS SOMEWHAT SPECULATIVE, THEY SAID OF THAT 880,000 AND CHANGE, 400, HALF OF IT, 440,000 WAS THE MONEY THAT THEY THINK THEY MIGHT SPEND SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE IF THEY HIRE SOMEONE AND THE PERSON TAKES A JOB, ACCEPTS THE POSITION. SO THAT GOES TO POINT NO. 2. IT WASN'T SPELLED OUT. IT'S SPELLED OUT. THERE WASN'T A NUMBER ASSOCIATED WITH IT AS WE HAVE FOR POINT NO. 1 WITH THE MATCHING FUNDS, THAT BEING THAT 90,000. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. WHAT WAS THE -- WHAT IS THE NET MATCHING AMOUNT AFTER YOU EXCLUDE THIS RECRUITMENT? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: JUST THE RECRUITMENT OR 90,000 AS WELL? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THE 90,000 AS WELL. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: IT WOULD BE ABOUT 350, IF MY MATH IS CORRECT. YOU'D HAVE 440 THAT THEY HAD ALREADY SPENT. OF THAT, WE'VE IDENTIFIED 90,000, WHICH WAS ACTUALLY SUPPLIES, WHICH WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE A 20-PERCENT MATCH FOR THEIR REQUESTED 1,978,535. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: MR. KLEIN, THAT CONFIRMS THE MATH I DID. WHEN YOU CARVE OUT THOSE TWO NUMBERS, IT'S 350,000, AS MR. KELLER SAID, $350,196. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: TO CLARIFY, THEY NEED TO COME UP TO ABOUT -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THEY NEED TO COME UP TO 395,700. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: EXACTLY. GREAT. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THAT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO ARE THERE -- | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I JUST WAS REMINDING YOU YOU NEEDED A MOTION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I KNOW. THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO DO. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I MAKE A MOTION THAT THEY BRING THEIR MATCH UP TO THE REQUIRED AMOUNT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I'LL SECOND THAT. I'D LIKE TO HAVE A VOICE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. SO THAT MOTION PASSES. | ||||||||
| AND THEN I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE -- WE NEED ANOTHER MOTION, CORRECT, RICK, ON CIRM SHOULD INFORM THE APPLICANT THAT ANY COST ISSUES SHALL NOT RESULT IN REDUCED SCOPE. THE INSTITUTION WILL GUARANTEE TO COVER ANY COST OVERRUNS. I PROPOSE THAT MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: SECOND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: AND A VOICE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR -- ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ISSUE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. | ||||||||
| SO I'D LIKE TO HAVE THE PRIMARY REVIEWER. I BELIEVE THAT'S ED KASHIAN. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: THANK YOU. AS USUAL, I'LL BE VERY SHORT. AS USUAL, I'LL BE VERY SHORT. THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION FOR ME LACKED INFORMATION, LACKED RESPONSIVENESS, AND IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE A QUALITY INSTITUTION THAT'S JUST ENTERING THE MEDICAL RESEARCH FIELD, AND THEY'VE GOT SOME GRANT WRITER TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET SOME MONEY TO HELP THEM DO IT. | ||||||||
| SO MY ANALYSIS IS THAT IT'S A VERY LOW SCORE FOR ME INDIVIDUALLY, IN THE LOWER 30 PERCENT IN EVERY CATEGORY, AND ESPECIALLY THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT IT TAKES TO GET THIS FACILITY GOING. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU, ED. I'D LIKE TO HAVE THE VICE CHAIR DO THE SECONDARY REVIEW ON APPLICATION 508. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I RECOGNIZE THAT THE APPLICATION HAD THE SAME SORT OF PROBLEMS IN EVERY CATEGORY: FEASIBILITY, COST, TIMELINES AND MILESTONES, INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE, AND GENERAL RESPONSIVENESS. AND THAT SAME ANALYSIS WOULD APPLY TO THE TECHNIQUES COURSE AS WELL. HOWEVER, I DON'T THINK I WAS AS -- I SCORED IT A LITTLE BIT HIGHER, MORE IN THE MID RANGE. AND I COULD GO OVER EACH ONE. I DON'T MIND SHARING MY SCORES. | ||||||||
| FOR FEASIBILITY, I THOUGHT ON THE WHOLE THE PLANS WERE REASONABLE AND DIDN'T HAVE ANY GLARING PROBLEMS, SO I GAVE THAT AN 11. | ||||||||
| FOR COST, THERE WERE SOME ISSUES WITH THE COST. IT DIDN'T HAVE THE KIND OF BREAKDOWN THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL IN DOING AN ANALYSIS. SO OUT OF 20, I GAVE IT A 14. | ||||||||
| THE TIMELINE AND MILESTONES, I DID HAVE SOME PROBLEMS WITH THIS. THEY DID MAKE THE ASSUMPTION, AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, THAT THE GRANTS WOULD BE ISSUED IN MAY OR SOMETHING, AND THAT'S JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, SO THEY MADE SOME FALSE ASSUMPTIONS, WHICH THEY REPRESENT TO US THAT THE PROJECT WILL BE DONE IN FEBRUARY OF 2009. AND THAT'S -- WE KNOW THAT'S JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. SO I RANKED THAT A 10 OUT OF 20. | ||||||||
| NOW, IN MY ORIGINAL SCORE, THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT I ASSIGNED A ZERO SCORE. BASED ON TODAY'S MOTION -- BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T MEET THE 20-PERCENT GRANTS FOR REASONS WE DISCUSSED EARLIER. BUT GIVEN THAT WE'VE MADE THE MOTION, AND THEN SORT OF BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THEY WILL COMPLY, I'M GOING TO GIVE THIS ONE A 15. YOU KNOW, I WOULD GIVE IT A LITTLE BIT HIGHER SCORE BECAUSE THEY'LL HAVE TO MEET THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, ASSUMING THAT THEY ARE AWARDED A GRANT, BUT THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES WITH THE APPLICATION ITSELF THAT LEADS ME TO GIVE THEM THE 15 SCORE. | ||||||||
| AND THEN FINALLY, COLLEAGUES, WITH THE HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE, I SAW -- I RECOGNIZE THE ISSUES MR. KASHIAN RAISED, ALTHOUGH I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS A HUGE OBSTACLE TO GETTING THE PROJECT DONE. THEY'VE HAD VARYING SUCCESS, AND THEY'VE HAD OVERRUNS AND DELAYS. SO I ASSIGNED A SEVEN. | ||||||||
| GENERAL RESPONSIVENESS, THIS IS AN INSTITUTION THAT'S UP AND RUNNING. IT'S IN ITS INFANCY, BUT IT DOES HAVE A COMMITMENT TO STEM CELL RESEARCH, AND IT IS AN INSTITUTION THAT CIRM IS FAMILIAR WITH. SO I GAVE THAT A 13. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE MEMBERS? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IN LIGHT OF THE VICE CHAIR'S COMMENTS, I'D LIKE EMPHASIZE THAT THIS IS CLEARLY SOMETHING IN ITS INFANCY, BUT IT'S A MAJOR INSTITUTION MAKING A COMMITMENT. AND ONE OF OUR ANNOUNCED GOALS WAS TO EXPAND CAPACITY WITH THESE SHARED LABS. SO I WAS HIGHER ON MY SCORING, ALTHOUGH LOWER THAN MOST OF THOSE THAT WE'VE ALREADY REVIEWED, BECAUSE CERTAINLY THERE ARE CHALLENGES TO PEOPLE GETTING INTO CONSTRUCTION IN THIS MEDICAL AREA, BUT THEY HAVE THE INSTITUTIONAL FINANCIAL CAPACITY TO PERFORM AND THE BACKUP OF THE ENTIRE SYSTEM THAT THEY BELONG TO. SO I BELIEVE THAT THEY WILL PERFORM, BUT I THINK THEIR TIMELINE IS INFLUENCED BY THE FACT THEY LACK EXPERIENCE, BUT THEY HAVE THE FINANCIAL STRENGTH AND INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTH TO ASSURE US EFFECTIVELY THAT THEY WILL PERFORM. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU, BOB. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? SO THERE SEEMS TO BE A CONSENSUS THAT WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A LUNCH BREAK AND RECONVENE. WHY DON'T WE CALL IT 1:30. LITTLE OVER 45 MINUTES. 1:30 SHARP. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: IF NO ONE OBJECTS, I'LL ASSUME THAT'S ACCEPTABLE. SO 1:30, IS THAT OKAY WITH EVERYONE? 1:30. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: JUST REMIND YOU THAT LUNCH IS IN THE KYOTO ROOM ON THE LOBBY LEVEL. AND THE NOTE HERE SAYS HOTEL STAFF WILL LEAD US THERE. SO IT MUST BE A YELLOW BRICK ROAD. THERE'S ALSO SECURITY IN THE ROOM DURING LUNCH. SO FEEL FREE TO LEAVE ITEMS THAT YOU WISH TO LEAVE WITH SOME ASSURANCE THAT THEY'RE SECURE. | ||||||||
| (A RECESS WAS TAKEN.) | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. MEMBERS, IF YOU COULD TAKE YOUR SEAT, PLEASE. RICK, SO THE NEXT APPLICATION WOULD BE 510. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: CORRECT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. RICK. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: 510 IS A REQUEST FOR A SHARED RESEARCH LABORATORY PROJECT. THE TOTAL CIRM REQUEST IS $295,888. IT ALSO INCLUDES A TECHNIQUES COURSE AS PART OF THE PART 1 APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| THE RECUSALS ARE LANSING, SHEEHY, AND FEIT. | ||||||||
| (MEMBERS LANSING, SHEEHY, AND FEIT ARE RECUSED FROM APPLICATION 510 AND ARE NOT PRESENT IN THE ROOM.) | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THE REVIEWERS ARE MEMBER HYSEN AND VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL. THE ONE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE WAS THAT THE TECHNIQUES COURSE, IN SOME CASES THE APPLICANTS HAVE PROPOSED A TECHNIQUES COURSE WITHIN THE PART 1 APPLICATION; THAT IS, WHERE THEY HAVE REQUESTED FUNDING FOR PERSONNEL, SUPPLIES, AND EQUIPMENT TO PUT ON A TECHNIQUES COURSE. THE PART 2 APPLICATION ALLOWED THOSE APPLICANTS WHO WERE PROPOSING A TECHNIQUES COURSE TO REQUEST UP TO $500,000 FOR CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT RELATED TO THE TECHNIQUES COURSE. | ||||||||
| SO I WANT TO JUST MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT THERE MAY NOT BE A REQUEST OF FUNDING BEFORE THIS GROUP, SUCH AS THE CASE HERE, WHERE THE TECHNIQUES COURSE IS NO ADDITIONAL COST BECAUSE IT'S BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE SHARED LABORATORY SPACE. AND SO WHEN YOU MAKE JUDGMENTS ABOUT -- WHEN YOU SEE THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP RESULTS ON THE STEM CELL TECHNIQUES COURSE, IT MAY NOT LOOK SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU SEE HERE IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF APPLICANTS WHO ACTUALLY REQUESTED FUNDS UNDER PART 2 FOR EQUIPMENT OR ALTERATIONS FOR THE STEM CELL COURSE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO, RICK, WHAT YOU'RE STATING IS THAT IT PROVIDES BOTH FUNCTIONS AT NO ADDITIONAL COST? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THAT'S RIGHT. IN THE APPLICATION ITSELF WE ASKED FOR TELL US WHAT YOU NEED FOR THE STEM CELL -- FOR THE SHARED LABORATORY. AND IN SOME CASES IT WAS DIVISABLE FROM THE STANDPOINT THAT THERE WERE SEPARATE SPACES IDENTIFIABLE. IN OTHER CASES THE APPLICANTS DECIDED THAT THESE SPACES WOULD BE MULTIPURPOSE SPACES OR SHARED-USE SPACES. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO ADDITIONAL MONEY ASKED OR PROPOSED AS PART OF THEIR APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU, RICK. NOW I'D LIKE TO PROCEED TO THE PRIMARY REVIEWER.DEBORAH. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WE HAVE NO STAFF ISSUES ON THIS, BY THE WAY. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: OKAY. THIS APPLICATION OVERALL FELL INTO THE MIDDLE OF MY APPLICATIONS IN TERMS OF ITS MERITS, ACTUALLY TOWARDS THE HIGH SIDE OF THE MIDDLE. THIS WOULD INVOLVE CONSTRUCTION OF -- LET ME GET MY NOTES REAL FAST HERE. THIS IS A RENOVATION OF A LABORATORY THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY USED AS A TISSUE CULTURE LABORATORY. AND AS I NOTED, THE MAJORITY OF THE WORK SEEMED TO BE MECHANICAL IN NATURE, AND IT SEEMED TO ADDRESS DIFFERENT VENTING REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIC TO THIS KIND OF LAB WORK VERSUS THE LAB WORK PREVIOUSLY CONDUCTED AT THE SITE. | ||||||||
| IT DID SEEM TO CONTEMPLATE ALL OF THE UPGRADES THAT MIGHT BE NECESSARY. THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE, AND IT'S A MINOR ONE, IS THEY INDICATE THAT EMERGENCY LIGHTING WILL BE BATTERY OPERATED. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE HARDWIRED REQUIREMENT, BUT I DON'T QUITE KNOW IF THAT'S THE CASE IN LAB FACILITIES. | ||||||||
| THERE IS NO SPECIFIC MENTION OF THE PERMITTING ENTITY OR THE PERMITTING TIME IN GENERAL, BUT I ASSUME THAT THEY'RE AWARE OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS AND THAT THEY WOULD INCORPORATE THEM. SO I GAVE THEM A MID TO HIGH SCORE FOR THIS, FEASIBILITY, BECAUSE I DIDN'T FEEL LIKE THE WORK WAS SIGNIFICANT, AND THAT THERE WERE REALLY NO IMPEDIMENTS TO GETTING THE WORK COMPLETED. | ||||||||
| COST, YOU WILL NOTE, IT IS ONE OF THE LOWEST. IT IS THE SECOND OR THIRD LOWEST OF ALL THE APPLICATIONS. AND, AGAIN, THAT'S ON A PER-SQUARE-FOOT BASIS. AND AGAIN, THAT'S BECAUSE IT DIDN'T SEEM THAT THERE WAS MUCH WORK. AND BECAUSE IT'S A MEDIUM SIZE LAB, ABOUT 1346 ASSIGNABLE SQUARE FEET, THEY'RE ABLE TO LEVERAGE SOME OF THE ECONOMIES OF SCALE TO GET A LOWER PER-SQUARE-FOOT COST. | ||||||||
| ALSO, I DID STRUGGLE WITH THE PI'S ON A COMPARATIVE BASIS BECAUSE IN THE RFA I DIDN'T ALWAYS HAVE AN INDICATION OF WHAT THE PI'S WERE. SO I DIDN'T REALLY KNOW HOW TO CALCULATE THIS. I THINK WE'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT THE STAFF SUMMARY FOR THAT. | ||||||||
| IN GENERAL, I FELT THAT, FROM A COST STANDPOINT, THEY WERE ON THE HIGH SIDE, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE IT WAS LOW ON THE PER-SQUARE-FOOT BASIS. | ||||||||
| THE TIMELINE AND MILESTONES, THIS WAS ONE OF THE EARLIEST COMPLETION TIMELINES OF ALL OF MY APPLICANTS. THIS WAS A PLANNED OCCUPANCY OF JANUARY WITH, I THINK, AN OPERATIONAL START DATE IN FEBRUARY IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. SO IT SEEMED THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO BRING THIS FACILITY ONLINE FASTER THAN THE OTHER APPLICANTS THAT I REVIEWED. I GAVE THEM A VERY HIGH SCORE IN THE AREA OF TIMELINE AND MILESTONES. | ||||||||
| THIS APPLICANT IN INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT DID NOT PROVIDE A CONSTRUCTION MATCH, BUT THEY WERE ABLE TO PROVIDE A MATCH IN EQUIPMENT THAT FAR EXCEEDED THE 20-PERCENT MATCH, ROUGHLY 180 PERCENT. AND I THINK IT WAS ALL MOVABLE EQUIPMENT. AND I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT THAT BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT WE -- THE FACILITIES GROUP IS ONLY ABLE TO ASSESS CAPITAL OR FIXED EQUIPMENT. AND I'M NOT SURE HOW WE CAN RATE THIS BASED ON MOVABLE EQUIPMENT, SO I WAS HOPING YOU COULD ANSWER THAT. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: YOU WOULDN'T BE ASKED TO RATE THE GROUP 2 AND 3 EQUIPMENT OR MOVABLE EQUIPMENT. AT THIS POINT YOU WOULD JUST BE ACCEPTING THE $530,000 AS A MATCH. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: SO EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T GET TO OPINE AS THE MOVABLE EQUIPMENT, WE CONSIDER THAT AS THE MATCH REQUIREMENT? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: YES. THE RFA IS WRITTEN IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE 20-PERCENT MATCH FOR CONSTRUCTION CAN BE CITED IN THE EQUIPMENT MATCH. AND THIS IS NOT THE ONLY APPLICATION THAT DOES THAT. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: OKAY. I RATED IT THEN HIGH AS A RESULT OF THE EXTENSIVE PERCENTAGE POINTS. | ||||||||
| HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE, THE MANAGEMENT PLAN WAS VERY GOOD ON THIS. THEY DETAILED THE SCOPE OF THE WORK AND THE SEQUENCING OF THE PHASES. THEY ALSO IDENTIFIED KEY IN-HOUSE AND OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS FOR THE PROJECT. IT DOESN'T GIVE VERY SPECIFIC INFORMATION ON THE PROJECTS OTHER THAN WHAT'S LISTED ON THE SPREADSHEET IN THE HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE, BUT IT SEEMED CLEAR THAT THEY HAVE DONE THIS WORK BEFORE. | ||||||||
| THE RFA, I FELT IT WAS SHORT AND TO THE POINT AND MET THE GENERAL CRITERIA. IT DIDN'T GO ABOVE AND BEYOND. SO I RATED IT IN THE MID RANGE FOR THAT. OVERALL THIS WAS SOLIDLY IN THE MIDDLE OF MY APPLICATIONS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, DEBORAH. ANY QUESTIONS FOR DEBORAH OR COMMENTS? THE VICE CHAIR WILL NOW DO THE SECONDARY REVIEW. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU. I HAVE TO TELL YOU, COLLEAGUES, WHEN I WAS REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION, AS I DO ALL OF THEM, I HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT'S IN THE DOCUMENT ITSELF. IT'S PUBLIC WHAT THESE INSTITUTIONS ARE. SO MY REVIEW WAS BASED ON WHAT THEY HAVE BEFORE US. I'LL BE INTERESTED IN THE SCIENTIFIC WORKING GROUP'S OPINION ON THIS ONE, WHICH WE'LL KNOW IN CLOSED SESSION. WON'T BE DISCLOSED TILL, I THINK, THE JUNE 5TH MEETING OF THE ICOC. | ||||||||
| ANYWAYS, I'LL GET STARTED. SO BASED ON WHAT THEY SUBMITTED, I SCORED THEM IN THE MID TO HIGH RANGE BECAUSE OF, YOU KNOW, THE FEASIBILITY OF THE PROJECT. YES, THE PLANS ARE MINOR, AND I DIDN'T SEE ANY MAJOR OBSTACLES. SO I GAVE THAT ONE A 12. | ||||||||
| THE COST, I SAW NO MAJOR IMPEDIMENTS OR ISSUES RAISED IN THE COST. I GAVE IT A 15. | ||||||||
| THE TIMELINE AND MILESTONES, AGAIN, THE APPLICATION, THERE WAS NOTHING GLARING THERE. SO I ASSIGNED THAT A 15. | ||||||||
| THE ISSUE I HAD WITH THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT HAD TO DO WITH SOMETHING THAT WAS RAISED IN THE STAFF REPORT. WAS THERE A MOTION ALREADY TO THAT ISSUE ON THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT? THERE WAS SOMETHING IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT SAID THAT THE EQUIPMENT WAS PAID FOR THROUGH A GRANT BY ITS FOUNDATION AND NOT THE APPLICANT ITSELF, SO ARGUABLY A THIRD PARTY. YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S A CLOSE ENOUGH CONNECTION BETWEEN THE FOUNDATION AND THE APPLICANT THAT IT'S IRRELEVANT, BUT I DID TAKE NOTE OF THAT. IT WAS ALSO MENTIONED IN THE STAFF ANALYSIS AS WELL. I DON'T THINK IT WARRANTS A MOTION. | ||||||||
| HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE, THEY DID PROVIDE SOME INFORMATION. WHILE NOT ALWAYS ENTIRELY SIMILAR, THEY DID SEEM TO HAVE A DECENT TRACK RECORD IN COMPLETING THEIR PROJECTS ON TIME. | ||||||||
| OVERALL, IS IT RESPONSIVE TO THE RFA CRITERIA AND OBJECTIVES? YES. THEY DON'T HAVE A LOT OF EXISTING THERE. AS I READ THE APPLICATION, THEY'VE JUST HIRED STAFF, AND THEY'VE MADE THIS COMMITMENT TO DO -- WELL, THEY VIEW THEIR CURRENT WORK AS A PROVIDER OF BLOOD PRODUCTS. THEY VIEW CELLULAR THERAPIES BASED ON STEM CELL TECHNOLOGY AS A NATURAL EXTENSION OF THE MISSION OF BLOOD BANKS. I, FOR ONE, I ACCEPTED THAT AS FACE VALUE THAT THAT'S, IN FACT, TRUE. I JUST ASSUME IT'S TRUE. I DON'T KNOW. WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY SORT OF BIG DISCUSSIONS ON THAT ISSUE PER SE AT THE ICOC THAT I CAN RECALL. SO ON RESPONSIVENESS I GAVE IT A TEN. AND THAT WOULD BE SAME FOR THE TECHNIQUES COURSE AS WELL. SO THAT'S MY ANALYSIS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: VICE CHAIR, I HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. SO YOU ASSIGNED IT WHAT COST WAS YOUR SCORE? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I GAVE IT A -- FOR COST, I GAVE IT A 15. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. EXCELLENT. DEBORAH, IN TERMS OF RESPONSIVENESS, HOW DID YOU CHARACTERIZE THE APPLICATION? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: WELL, THEY MET THE BASIC CATEGORIES. THEY JUST DIDN'T SEEM TO ELABORATE IN A LOT OF DETAIL AND PROVIDE THE DEPTH OF INFORMATION THAT SOME OF THE OTHER APPLICATIONS THAT I SCORED HIGHER DID. THIS WAS -- IF YOU WERE TO JUST LOOK AT WERE THEY RESPONSIVE, WAS IT FEASIBLE, IF ALL THESE THINGS WERE MET, AND THEY DID. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO WOULD YOU SAY THAT'S AVERAGE OR ABOVE AVERAGE? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: I PUT ABOVE AVERAGE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER MEMBER? BOB, YOU HAD SOME QUESTIONS? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT THAT I THINK THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT HERE IS MAJOR. WE'RE GETTING A LOT OF LEVERAGE FOR THE BENEFIT OF STEM CELL RESEARCH IN THE STATE. WHEREAS, THE LEVERAGE IS IMPORTANT IN INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT HERE, IT WILL BE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO US IN MAJOR FACILITIES WHERE TO STRETCH OUR DOLLARS IN HIGH COST AREAS, WE'LL REALLY NEED TO SEE SOME SUBSTANTIAL LEVERAGE TO BE ABLE TO FUND ALL OF THE CENTERS AT THE LEVELS THAT IT IS THE OBJECTIVE AND MISSION OF THIS INSTITUTE TO REACH. | ||||||||
| ADDITIONALLY, WE'RE GOING TO COMMENT LATER ON THE COURSE; IS THAT CORRECT, THE TECHNIQUES COURSE? THERE'S GOING TO BE A LATER REVIEW? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WE WERE GOING TO GO THROUGH AND BASICALLY SCORE, JUST TALLY THE SCORES SEPARATELY AND HAVE THEM DISCUSSED IN PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW. YOU SHOULD BE SCORING OR USING THE SCORECARD FOR THE TECHNIQUES COURSE IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN SO FAR BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY THEY WERE SET UP. WHAT WE HAD HOPED WAS THAT YOU WOULD DESCRIBE ANY ASPECT THAT WAS PRESENTED ON THE SPACE PLAN FOR THE TECHNIQUES COURSE THAT WOULD LEAD YOU TO CONCLUDE THAT IT HAD TO HAVE A DIFFERENT SCORE THAN THE INFORMATION THAT YOU WERE USING TO BASE AN EVALUATION OF THE SHARED LAB PROPOSAL BECAUSE MOST OF THESE ARE SYNONYMOUS IN TERMS OF INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT AND THEIR ABILITY FOR HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE. YOU WOULD PROBABLY THINK THAT THEY WOULD BE ALIGNED, BUT IN SOME CASES I THINK EITHER FEASIBILITY OR OTHER ISSUES CREPT IN. SO WE ALLOWED THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE MIGHT THINK ABOUT IN THE FUTURE IS THE CREDENTIALS OF THIS BY REPUTATION OF THIS INSTITUTION ARE QUITE SOLID ACADEMICALLY, INTELLECTUAL CREDENTIALS. AND THE ISSUE HERE IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE ALL THAT INFORMATION HERE. BUT ON THE TECHNICAL BASIS, SO WE CAN ONLY EVALUATE FOR TECHNIQUES SCORE WHAT WE HAVE HERE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO, BOB, THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. WE WILL DEFINITELY, I THINK, HAVE THE VICE CHAIR TAKE THAT UP UNDER THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: CAN I JUST ADD TO THAT TOO BECAUSE THE TECHNIQUES, THERE WASN'T A WAY TO LOOK AT THE TECHNIQUES COURSE DIFFERENTLY. THERE ARE SOME TECHNIQUES COURSES WHERE THEY WENT INTO DETAIL ABOUT WHO THE PROFESSORS WERE AND WHAT THEY WOULD TEACH, AND IT WAS AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF DETAIL AND IT REALLY MADE YOU VERY INTERESTED IN THE QUALITY OF THAT TRAINING PROGRAM. WHEREAS, SOME PEOPLE, THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO A TECHNIQUES COURSE AND THEY WERE GOING TO PROVIDE TRAINING. AND I FELT LIKE QUALITATIVELY I WAS HOPING I COULD RATE THAT DIFFERENTLY. I TENDED TO PUT THAT IN RESPONSIVENESS IF I WERE TO CHANGE MY SCORE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK THAT, AS I SAY, WE MIGHT THINK ABOUT IN THE CASE THEY'VE MADE A VERY DETAILED SUBMISSION ON THE TECHNIQUES COURSE, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION HERE. AND SO IN SOME OF THE GRANTS, WE HAVE MORE OF THE BACKGROUND TO THE TECHNIQUES COURSE, PERSONNEL, ETC., IN THE FACILITIES PORTION THAN WE HAVE IN OTHERS. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: RIGHT. AGAIN, UNDER THE WAY THE RFA WAS ORGANIZED, THEY WERE TO REQUEST CAPITAL AND EQUIPMENT FUNDING FOR THE TECHNIQUES COURSE SEPARATELY. AND THEY ELECTED TO NOT ASK FOR ANY IN THIS PROPOSAL. | ||||||||
| SO THE SHARED LAB, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE PUTTING ON A COURSE, THEY DIDN'T ASK FOR ANY MONEY IN THIS PART 2 TO SUPPORT IT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WE ARE SUFFERING HERE BY NOT GETTING THE SUBMISSION THAT WOULD HAVE COME WITH THAT REQUEST BECAUSE IN PRESENTING THE TECHNIQUES COURSE, THEY PRESENTED LOTS OF MATERIAL. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING YOU COULD -- IN TERMS OF HOW THIS GROUP FUNCTIONS AND THE GRANTS WORK FUNCTIONS SO THAT THERE'S A BASICALLY COMING TOGETHER AT THE ICOC, THIS, I THINK, IS A GOOD EXAMPLE WHERE THOSE -- WHERE THE PERSPECTIVES ARE DIFFERENT BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THE ROLE IS DIFFERENT, AND THEN THE ICOC MAKES THE DECISION. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I UNDERSTAND. AS DEBORAH HAS INDICATED, IT'S VALUABLE TO US, EVEN IF YOU DUPLICATE SOME OF THIS INFORMATION, TO HAVE IT IN FUTURE CASES WHERE WE GET WHERE THERE'S AN OVERLAPPING RESPONSIBILITY TO GET THE BACKGROUND MATERIALS ON BOTH SIDES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THAT WOULD BE THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION OF PART 1. THAT'S THE -- UNDER THE CURRENT STRUCTURE OF THIS RFA, WE COULDN'T DO THAT FOR YOU. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I UNDERSTAND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BOB, THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. SO ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR THE REVIEWERS ON THIS APPLICATION? OKAY. I'D LIKE EVERYONE TO GO AHEAD AND WRITE DOWN THEIR PRELIMINARY SCORE FOR THIS APPLICATION. CAN WE INVITE BACK JEFF AND MARCY, PLEASE. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| RICK, LORI, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE NEXT APPLICATION; BUT IF THERE IS AN OVERSIGHT BY ANY OF THE MEMBERS TO FILL IN THEIR SEPARATE SCORE FOR THE STEM CELL TECHNIQUES COURSE, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE, IF IT'S OMITTED AS AN OVERSIGHT, THAT WE COUNT THE SAME SCORE AS THE SHARED LABS. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO THE MEMBERS? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: SO THE DEFAULT CIRCUMSTANCE IS IF IT'S BLANK, TAKE THE SAME NUMBER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: PERFECT. I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT. SO I GUESS WE DON'T NEED TO MAKE A MOTION ON THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR SCORING CHAIRMAN UNDERSTANDS THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SO IF THAT'S A MOTION. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I DON'T KNOW -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IT'S A QUESTION. DO WE NEED IT AS A MOTION? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: PROBABLY. I WILL MAKE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. THE MOTION PASSES. | ||||||||
| I JUST THOUGHT IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO CLARIFY THAT VERSUS ZEROS FOR THOSE. | ||||||||
| SO THE NEXT APPLICATION IS APPLICATION 511. RICK, I BELIEVE THERE IS A TECHNICAL ISSUE, FINANCIAL ISSUE ON THIS APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| (MEMBER LANSING IS RECUSED FROM APPLICATION 511 AND IS NOT PRESENT IN THE ROOM.) | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: ITEM 511, THE PRIMARY REVIEWER IS CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER AND SECONDARY REVIEWER IS MEMBER FEIT. THE PROPOSAL IS FOR $1,640,000 FOR A SHARED RESEARCH LABORATORY PROJECT AND AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF 496,231 FOR EQUIPMENT ONLY RELATED TO THE STEM CELL TECHNIQUES COURSE. | ||||||||
| HERE'S THE COMBINATIONS AND PERMUTATIONS. WE HAVE THE REQUEST, BUT ACTUALLY NO CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATED WITH IT. THE ONE STAFF ISSUE THAT WE NEED TO RESOLVE IS THAT THIS PROPOSAL MAKES, AGAIN, IN TERMS OF MY INTERPRETATION OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF HOW THESE APPLICANTS RESPONDED TO THE ISSUE OF COST OVERRUNS AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMITTEE UNDERSTANDS THOSE, I'M GOING TO TRY FIND THOSE IN EVERY INSTANCE SO THAT YOU COULD MAKE A JUDGMENT. | ||||||||
| IN THIS CASE THE PROPOSER IS SAYING THAT THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WILL BE PUT OUT FOR A COMPETITIVE HARD BID, SO THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE OBLIGATED TO COVER ANY OVERRUNS NOT CAUSED BY THE CLIENT. AGAIN, THAT'S NOT USUALLY THE CASE. AND JUST A HARD BID DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE'S NO COST OVERRUN. | ||||||||
| SECONDLY, IT GOES ON TO SAY THAT COST EXCEEDING THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION BUDGET WILL BE COVERED BY VALUE ENGINEERING AND THE CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (EQUAL TO 10 PERCENT OF THE CONSTRUCTION BUDGET). WITH THOSE TWO COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE COST OVERRUN, WE FELT IT WAS NOT CLEAR ENOUGH THAT WE WANT TO PRESERVE THE SCOPE AND AT THE SAME TIME HAVE THEM GIVE US A COMMITMENT. SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING, PER YOUR PREVIOUS PROCEDURE, THE LANGUAGE RELATED TO COST OVERRUN. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: RICK, THANK YOU. I WOULD CONCUR AS THE PRIMARY REVIEWER, AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT CIRM SHOULD INFORM THE APPLICANT THAT ANY COST ISSUES SHALL NOT RESULT IN REDUCED SCOPE, AND THE INSTITUTION WILL GUARANTEE TO COVER ANY COST OVERRUNS. DO I HAVE A SECOND? | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: SECOND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DR. WRIGHT. SO I'D LIKE TO HAVE ANY DISCUSSION. OKAY. I'D LIKE TO HAVE A VOICE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. | ||||||||
| THE MOTION PASSES. | ||||||||
| SO I WILL NOW DO THE PRIMARY REVIEW. SO FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO SAY THAT I DIDN'T SEE ANY PROBLEMS IN TERMS OF FEASIBILITY. THERE WERE NO MAJOR ISSUES IN THE INFORMATION. SO, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS RENOVATING 4,000 SQUARE FOOT OF ASSIGNABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE IN AN EXISTING BUILDING TO EXPAND AN EXISTING STEM CELL LABORATORY, PROVIDE TISSUE CULTURE SPACE, SUPPORT ROOMS, IMAGING EQUIPMENT, AND EXPAND AN EXISTING VIVARIUM AS WELL. AS WE MENTIONED, THE PROPOSAL ALSO INCLUDED A STEM CELL TECHNIQUES COURSE. | ||||||||
| SO THE COST, IN ADDITION TO THE FEASIBILITY, AGAIN, I THOUGHT I WOULD CHARACTERIZE IT AS GOOD TO VERY GOOD. THE COST SEEMED TO BE EXCELLENT COMPARED TO OTHER GRANT APPLICATIONS. IT WAS ABOUT $202 PER ASSIGNABLE SQUARE FOOT. THE OVERALL SCHEDULE SEEMED TO BE SOMEWHAT AGGRESSIVE TO AGGRESSIVE. THIS WAS ONE OF THE MORE AGGRESSIVE SCHEDULES THAT I'VE LOOKED AT. LOOKED LIKE IT WAS APPROXIMATELY EIGHT TO NINE MONTHS. | ||||||||
| THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT WAS GOOD TO VERY GOOD. WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE PERCENTAGE THAT THEY HAD MATCHING, AGAIN, THEY MET THE 20 PERCENT. THEY ACTUALLY WENT TO 25 PERCENT. | ||||||||
| THE HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE SEEMED TO BE AVERAGE. AGAIN, AVERAGE WITHIN COMPARISON TO THE OTHER APPLICANTS. NO MAJOR ISSUES. BUT, AGAIN, I WOULDN'T CHARACTERIZE IT AS EXCELLENT OR BELOW AVERAGE. | ||||||||
| AND THE RESPONSIVENESS SEEMED TO BE VERY GOOD AS WELL. I THOUGHT THAT WAS VERY GOOD. | ||||||||
| ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PRIMARY REVIEWER? OKAY. SO NOW I'D LIKE TO HAVE THE SECONDARY REVIEW DONE, AND THAT WOULD BE MARCY. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: YES. I AGREE WITH YOU ON MOST OF YOUR COMMENTS. I GAVE IT A 12 ON FEASIBILITY. IN TERMS OF COST, I DIDN'T SEE ANY ISSUES THERE EITHER. I GAVE IT AN 18. TIMELINESS AND MILESTONE, 17. INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, YOU KNOW, BASED ON JUST RETHINKING THIS, I'M GOING TO GIVE IT A 19. HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE, I GAVE IT A 7. AND THEN RESPONSIVENESS, I GAVE IT A 13. | ||||||||
| I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT WE FUND THIS PROJECT. THIS IS ONE OF THE FEW PROJECTS THAT HAS A TECHNIQUES COURSE, AND THEY DID GO INTO QUITE A BIT OF DETAIL EXPLAINING THE FACT THAT THEY WOULD BE TRAINING NEW RESEARCHERS ON HOW TO HANDLE HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS. AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS VERY IMPORTANT, THAT THEY WOULD BE ESTABLISHING THAT KIND OF PROGRAM. THEY WENT INTO QUITE OF BIT OF DETAIL TALKING ABOUT WHEN TUITION WOULD BE EXPECTED AND NOT EXPECTED AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES. SO I THOUGHT THE COURSEWORK FOR THE SHARED LAB TECHNIQUE TRAINING WAS EXCELLENT THE WAY IT WAS LAID OUT AND QUALIFIED INSTRUCTORS. | ||||||||
| MY OVERALL SCORE IS GOING TO END UP BEING 86, I BELIEVE, BUT I THOUGHT THIS WAS A GOOD APPLICATION. MY ONLY DISAPPOINTMENT IN THE APPLICATION WERE THE DRAWINGS. I THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE VERY POOR. IT WAS DIFFICULT, I THINK, FOR THE STAFF, WHEN THEY ANALYZED IT, TO COME UP WITH ANY STRONG CALCULATIONS BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT DONE TO SCALE. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, THIS INSTITUTE I WOULD HAVE EXPECTED MORE. SO THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY NEGATIVE COMMENT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I WOULD THANK YOU, MARCY. I WOULD CONCUR WITH YOU ABOUT THE DRAWINGS AS WELL. SO ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR EITHER REVIEWER? ANY COMMENTS? OKAY. I'D LIKE EVERYONE TO RECORD THEIR PRELIMINARY SCORES. | ||||||||
| RICK, WOULD THE NEXT APPLICATION BE 512? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I THINK WE ARE GOING TO DEFER ON 512 TILL LATER IN THE MEETING. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WHAT WILL THE NEXT ONE BE? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: NEXT ONE WILL BE 514. THE RECUSALS HERE ARE MEMBERS LANSING, SHEEHY, AND FEIT. STAFF RECUSALS WERE SAMBRANO AND HOFFMAN. | ||||||||
| (MEMBERS LANSING, SHEEHY, AND FEIT AND STAFF MEMBERS SAMBRANO AND HOFFMAN ARE RECUSED FROM APPLICATION 514 AND ARE NOT PRESENT IN THE ROOM.) | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THE PROPOSAL IS FOR A SHARED RESEARCH LABORATORY OF 986,592. THE PRIMARY REVIEWER IS MEMBER KASHIAN AND THE SECONDARY REVIEWER IS MEMBER WRIGHT. | ||||||||
| THERE IS ONE STAFF ITEM HERE. I WANT TO THANK JANET FOR A CAREFUL READING OF MY STAFF ANALYSIS BECAUSE THERE IS A TYPO, AND I THINK WE CAUGHT IT, SO GOT IT MATCHED OUT. ALTHOUGH I CHARACTERIZE THIS AS THE MATCHING FUNDS, IT REALLY IS A FACTOR THAT DEALS WITH THE BUDGETING OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS EXCEEDING THE GUIDELINE IN THE RFA BY $99,763. AND SO WITH THAT, IT IS CONSISTENT WITH YOUR PREVIOUS ACTION ON THESE TECHNICAL ISSUES. IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR YOU TO REQUEST A MOTION TO APPROVE THAT APPLYING TO THIS APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE A MOTION THAT CIRM SHALL REDUCE ITS GRANT AMOUNT, APPLICANT PROVIDES INSTITUTIONAL FUNDS FOR THESE UNALLOWABLE EXPENSES. DO I HAVE A SECOND? | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: SECOND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ANY DISCUSSION? I'D LIKE TO HAVE A VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL OPPOSED? OKAY. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. | ||||||||
| SO, ED, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE PROCEED TO DO THE PRIMARY REVIEW. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I'D LIKE TO ASK MR. KELLER A QUESTION BEFORE PROCEEDING. WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ABOUT THE MATCH? ARE THEY ALLOWED TO APPLY THE OVERMATCH ON EQUIPMENT TO THE PHYSICAL FACILITY? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: JUST A SECOND. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: WHILE HE'S LOOKING THAT UP, I CAN PROCEED IF YOU WOULD LIKE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I THINK THE ISSUE HERE WAS THAT THEY HAD TWO SPECIFIC PIECES OF EQUIPMENT THAT THEY HAD PURCHASED SINCE JANUARY. AND UNDER THE RFA, THEY ARE CITING THOSE AS THE SOLE SOURCE FOR THE MATCH. AND I THINK WE SIMPLY POINTED THAT OUT BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT WHEN YOU SEE NO MATCHING FUNDS OPPOSITE CONSTRUCTION, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY HAD IDENTIFIED AN ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF MEETING THAT MATCH. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: AND HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR IT. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I CONSIDER THIS ONE OF THE OUTSTANDING APPLICATIONS. THEY'VE JUST COMPLETED OR ABOUT TO COMPLETE A MAJOR MEDICAL RESEARCH FACILITY AT MISSION BAY ALONG WITH UCSF AND SOME OTHER INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE DEDICATED TOWARD MEDICAL RESEARCH. THE BUILDING IS STATE OF ART, AND IN MY MIND IT SHOWS LONG-TERM COMMITMENT TO MEDICAL RESEARCH WAY BEYOND THE CIRM ISSUES. I RATED THE FEASIBILITY 12. AND THE COST, GIVEN SAN FRANCISCO STANDARDS, IS ACCEPTABLE TO ME. I RATED IT HIGH. THE TIMELINES ARE A LITTLE BIT WEAK FOR ME -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ED, COULD YOU SPEAK UP, PLEASE. MOVE A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: THE TIMELINE IS A LITTLE BIT WEAK FOR ME. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ED, COULD YOU GO BACK AND TALK ABOUT YOUR FEASIBILITY RATING AND COST AS WELL. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: SURE. THE FEASIBILITY TO ME IS IN THE VERY HIGH PERCENTAGE, VERY HIGH AREA. AND THE COST, GIVEN SAN FRANCISCO STANDARDS, IS ALSO VERY ACCEPTABLE TO ME. THE TIMELINE IS A LITTLE BIT WEAK, BUT I'M NOT ACQUAINTED WITH SAN FRANCISCO CONSTRUCTION ISSUES. THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT IS OF THE HIGHEST GRADE THAT I HAVE BECAUSE THEY'VE COMMITTED A LOT OF MONEY TOWARDS A MAJOR FACILITY, NOT JUST STEM CELL RESEARCH, BUT OTHER MEDICAL RESEARCH AND HAVE ALMOST COMPLETED THE PROJECT. HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE, GIVEN THAT COMPLETION, IS A HIGH, VERY HIGH MARK FOR ME, AND SO IS RESPONSIVENESS. | ||||||||
| THE FACT THAT THEY ALREADY PURCHASED THE EQUIPMENT AND HAVE IT IN HAND AND CONSTRUCTION IS EN ROUTE, I FEEL THIS MERITS, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, FUNDING AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU, ED. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PRIMARY REVIEWER? OKAY. JANET, THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I COMPLETELY CONCUR WITH ED. UNDER THE FEASIBILITY THEY MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT HAVING TO GET A PERMIT APPROVED AND SAYING THEY EVEN HAD A PLAN FOR A PERMIT EXPEDITER, WHICH WAS A VERY SCARY PICTURE FOR ME, SOMETHING FROM THE SOPRANOS, MAYBE, OF SENDING OUT A PERMIT EXPEDITER. I HOPE HE NEVER COMES TO ME. | ||||||||
| BUT ON THE MORE SERIOUS NOTE, I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH ALL OF THIS. MY ONLY POINT IN TERMS OF THE RESPONSIVENESS WAS I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE HEARD MORE DETAIL ABOUT THEIR PLANS TO INCORPORATE OTHER INVESTIGATORS OUTSIDE THE MOTHER INSTITUTION, BUT PERHAPS THAT COMES IN THE PROGRAMMATIC AREA OR FROM THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW. VERY HIGH SCORES ALL ACROSS THE BOARD. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU, JANET. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PRIMARY OR SECONDARY REVIEWER? OKAY. SO I'D LIKE TO ALLOW EVERYONE A MINUTE OR SO TO RECORD THE PRELIMINARY SCORES. OKAY. | ||||||||
| RICK, WHAT WOULD BE THE NEXT APPLICATION THAT WE REVIEW? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: NEXT ONE IS CL-100518-1. THE RECUSALS ON THIS ONE WOULD BE MEMBER FEIT, AND SHE'S ALREADY OUT OF THE ROOM. | ||||||||
| (MEMBERS LANSING AND FEIT ARE RECUSED ON APPLICATION 518-1 AND ARE NOT PRESENT IN THE ROOM.) | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THE PROPOSAL IS $2 MILLION FOR A SHARED RESEARCH LABORATORY OF CIRM FUNDS, 500,000 FOR THE TECHNIQUES COURSE. ALL OF THAT IS EQUIPMENT FUNDING. THE PRIMARY REVIEWER WOULD BE CHAIR LICHTENGER AND JANET WRIGHT. | ||||||||
| THERE ARE SEVERAL STAFF ISSUES HERE. THE FIRST ONE APPLIES TO OUR USUAL PROCEDURE RELATED TO COST OVERRUNS. WE DON'T FEEL THAT THE COMMITMENT IN THE APPLICATION ADEQUATELY ADDRESSES THAT ISSUE. | ||||||||
| SECONDLY, THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH THE FACT THAT THE INSTITUTION IS BUDGETING 10 PERCENT OF THE MATCH IN THE CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY ITSELF, AND WE THINK THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE CLARIFICATION ON THAT ISSUE IN TERMS OF MAINTAINING THE MATCHING AMOUNT GIVEN THE FACT THAT CONTINGENCY MAY OR MAY NOT BE EXPENDED. WHEREAS, YOU MAKE A HARD BID, YOU WOULD EXPECT TO SPEND THAT MONEY. IF YOU HAVE A CONTINGENCY, YOU MAY OR MAY NOT SPEND IT. | ||||||||
| THE OTHER FINANCIAL ISSUE IS THE REIMBURSEMENT OF DESIGN COSTS OF 60,410. IN OUR REVIEW OF THESE APPLICATIONS, YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED THAT WHERE PEOPLE HAVE STARTED EARLY, THEY'VE USED THEIR OWN MONEY AND HAVE COUNTED THAT AS TOWARDS THE MATCH TO GET THE ARCHITECT STARTED OR TO DO SOME OF THE PRELIMINARY WORK. IN THIS CASE THE CIRM FUNDS ARE BEING EMPLOYED TO REIMBURSE THE INSTITUTION FOR THOSE FUNDS. SO IT'S NOT A CIRCUMSTANCE THAT WE THINK THAT YOU WANT TO GET IN THE BUSINESS OF BASICALLY REIMBURSING AFTER THE FACT. | ||||||||
| AND FINALLY, THERE'S $500,000 FOR THE TECHNIQUES COURSE, BUT THE MATCHING FUNDS WERE VERY NEBULOUS, AND SO WE COULDN'T FIGURE OUT WHERE THAT WAS, AND SO THERE DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE A MATCHING AMOUNT FOR THAT. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: I JUST WANT TO ADD SOMETHING ON THE MATCHING FUNDS. YOU WILL NOTE ON THE APPLICATION THAT THE INSTITUTION REFERRED TO A $20 MILLION AMOUNT OF MONEY ON THE LEASE SPACE, WHICH IS ONE OF THE TWO PROJECTS THAT THEY'VE CITED IN THIS APPLICATION. BUT, AGAIN, BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A SPECIFIC DATE WHEN THAT WORK HAPPENED, WE NOTED IT, BUT IT'S DIFFICULT TO THEN INCLUDE IN THE MATCH BECAUSE THE BUDGET, THEY REFER TO OVER FUNDS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, LORI. I HAD A SIMILAR SENSE OF THAT ISSUE. SO -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I THINK THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE TO MAKE MOTIONS. BUT ON THE QUESTION, SO NO MATCHING FUNDS FOR THE TECHNIQUES COURSE, THAT IS A REQUIREMENT OF THE RFA, THAT THERE BE MATCHING FUNDS, CORRECT? THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THAT IS CORRECT. IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE WHAT THE APPLICANT ASSUMED WAS THAT THE $20-MILLION MATCH THAT HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THEIR NARRATIVE WOULD COUNT; HOWEVER, IT WASN'T CITED IN THE BUDGET. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: WASN'T STATED. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: WASN'T IDENTIFIED. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AND WITH THIS PARTICULAR INSTITUTION, IT'S KNOWN THAT THE BUILDING THAT THE 20 MILLION IS RELATED TO WAS ACQUIRED -- THE LEASEHOLD AND THE IMPROVEMENTS WERE AFTER 2005, SO IT'S NOT STATED IN HERE, BUT IT IS A FACTUAL ISSUE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WHICH IS WHY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE MOTION. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: AGAIN, IT'S DIFFICULT TO TELL. AND, OF COURSE, IF THE LEASE ON THE SPACE GOES TO 2019, ONE CAN ASSUME IT'S A 15- OR 20-YEAR LEASE. I THINK THEY'VE HAD THE SPACE PRIOR TO 2005. SO SOME OF THE RENOVATION, I DON'T KNOW, AGAIN, GIVEN THAT I ONLY HAVE THE INFORMATION THAT'S PRESENTED IN THE APPLICATION, IT WAS UNCLEAR. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU, LORI. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT CAUSES SIGNIFICANT CONCERN, THAT THIS INSTITUTION, IT WOULD APPEAR, JUST MADE SUCH DISCREPANCY THAT THEY DIDN'T PROVIDE MATCHING FUNDS. AND IT'S SO CLEARLY STATED IN THE RFA THAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO DO SO. WHETHER IT WAS AN ERROR ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT WRITER, I DON'T KNOW. I ONLY HAVE THE INFORMATION BEFORE ME. SO ONCE WE GET TO THE MOTION, DAVID, I'M STILL A LITTLE UNDECIDED HOW I WANT TO VOTE, BUT WE NEED TO MOVE ON. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: FAIR ENOUGH. I'D LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION NOW ON THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR APPLICATION 518. ON THE FIRST ITEM, CIRM SHOULD INFORM APPLICANT THAT ANY COST ISSUES SHALL NOT RESULT IN REDUCED SCOPE, AND THE INSTITUTION WILL GUARANTEE TO COVER ANY COST OVERRUNS. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: SECOND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SECOND FROM JANET WRIGHT. SO ON THIS ISSUE I'D LIKE TO HAVE A VOICE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? OKAY. SO THAT WILL CARRY UNANIMOUSLY IN TERMS OF THE COST OVERRUNS. | ||||||||
| AND THEN THE SECOND MOTION I'D LIKE TO MAKE IS ON THE MATCHING FUNDS. CIRM SHALL REQUIRE THAT THE APPLICANT IDENTIFY AN APPROPRIATE SOURCE OF MATCHING FUNDS AS PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. DO I HAVE A SECOND ON THAT? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SECOND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BOB KLEIN. AND VOICE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: NO. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THOSE OPPOSED. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: NO. AYE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO THE MOTION CARRIES WITH ONE OPPOSED. | ||||||||
| I WAS THE PRIMARY REVIEWER ON THIS APPLICATION, SO I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND DO THAT NOW. | ||||||||
| SO I THOUGHT THE PROJECT SEEMED QUITE FEASIBLE. THERE WERE NO MAJOR ISSUES. I THOUGHT THEIR PLANS WERE VERY CLEAR AND, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO WAS TO RENOVATE 3800 SQUARE FEET TO EXISTING LEASED RESEARCH BUILDINGS. AND THEY PROVIDE THREE SHARED RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND RELATED SUPPORT AREAS AND THREE LABORATORIES AND OFFICE SPACE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TISSUE CULTURE SPACE. AND, AGAIN, IT SEEMED VERY FEASIBLE. THE PLANS AND THE DETAILS WERE WELL DONE. | ||||||||
| THE COST SEEMED TO BE EXCELLENT COMPARED TO THE OTHER REVIEWED GRANT APPLICATIONS. IT WAS CERTAINLY -- I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS THE HIGHEST SCORE, BUT IT WAS CERTAINLY EXCELLENT AND CLOSE TO THE HIGHEST SCORE IN TERMS OF COST. | ||||||||
| I THOUGHT THE TIMELINE AND MILESTONES WAS QUITE AGGRESSIVE, SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE BETTER SCHEDULES I HAD SEEN, SO I THOUGHT IT WAS QUITE GOOD. SO I'M GOING TO GIVE IT ONE OF THE HIGHEST SCORES ON THE TIMELINE AND MILESTONES. | ||||||||
| AND GIVEN THE MOTION THAT CARRIED, I THOUGHT THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT IS EXCELLENT WHEN THE $20 MILLION, I DON'T KNOW IF ALL THAT MONEY WAS SPENT AFTER 2005, BUT CERTAINLY I'M ASSUMING A SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE OF THOSE DOLLARS WERE PROBABLY SPENT AFTER THAT POINT. SO I WOULD HAVE TO SAY THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE EXCELLENT. PROBABLY ONE OF THE HIGHEST SCORES I'VE SEEN. | ||||||||
| THE HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE, BASED ON THE INFORMATION THEY GAVE US, WAS EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD BASED ON THE NUMBER OF CAPITAL PROJECTS AND DOLLARS SPENT. | ||||||||
| AND, AGAIN, THE PROPOSAL SEEMED VERY RESPONSIVE. I HAD NO CONCERNS ABOUT THE RESPONSIVENESS. I THOUGHT IT WAS QUITE WELL PUT TOGETHER AND ADDRESSED THE RFA. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: THE ONLY COMMENT I'D MAKE IS UNDER THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, NOT ONLY THE DOLLARS, BUT ALSO THEY HAD VERY SPECIFIC PLANS FOR FACULTY ACCESS AFTER THEIR GRANT EXPIRES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT ISSUE UP. OVERALL I THOUGHT THIS WAS ONE OF THE STRONGEST APPLICATIONS I REVIEWED, AND I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND THIS GRANT APPLICATION. ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR EITHER REVIEWER? | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I'M UNCLEAR ABOUT THE STATUS OF THAT $20-MILLION GRANT, WHETHER THEY HAVE COMMITTED OR NOT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY BASICALLY HAVE SPENT $20 MILLION BUILDING OUT THESE FACILITIES, AND I THINK IT'S A QUESTION OF GETTING VERIFICATION OF THOSE DOLLARS AND HOW MUCH WAS SPENT AFTER 2005. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: WHICH WAS ALLOCATED TOWARD THIS ISSUE, AND HAS IT BEEN SPENT? THAT'S THE QUESTIONS I HAVE. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: AND I ACTUALLY WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE REMEDY THAT WE USED ON ALL THE OTHER APPLICATIONS BE IMPOSED ON THIS AS WELL SO THAT THAT WOULD BE CLEAR AND CONSISTENT. | ||||||||
| AND I WOULD LIKE TO ANSWER THE VICE CHAIR'S EARLIER COMMENT BECAUSE, INDEED, IT IS CORRECT, THAT THERE IS NO MATCH ON THE TECHNIQUES COURSE. HOWEVER, ON THE BUDGET ON C.3, YOU WILL NOTICE IN THE CONSTRUCTION LINE, THEY PUT $100,000 OF INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT. HOWEVER, IN THE TECHNIQUES COURSE, THERE IS NO CONSTRUCTION. IT IS ALL EQUIPMENT, MEANING THEY DIDN'T NEED ANY ADDITIONAL SPACE. SO, AGAIN, I THINK WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO IS DRAW FROM THE $20 MILLION, BUT IN THE NARRATIVE, THEY NEVER REFERENCE BACK TO IT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, LORI. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IS THE $20 MILLION BEING REFERENCED IS IN THE SPECIFIC LEASED BUILDING? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: IT APPEARS SUCH, YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: ARE WE SUPPOSED TO SCORE THIS AS IF THEY'RE GOING TO CLEAR THAT UP TO OUR SATISFACTION OR NO? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: ON A FACTUAL BASIS, IT'S AN INTERESTING POINT BECAUSE AS A FACTUAL BASIS, IT'S KNOWN WHERE THE BUILDING IS, IT'S KNOWN THE BUILDING WAS LEASED AFTER 2005. AND SO EVERYONE CAN -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WELL, I THINK BASED UPON THE MOTION AND BASED UPON HOW WE'VE DECIDED TO DEAL WITH THESE TECHNICAL ISSUES, ED, YOU HAVE TO MAKE THE PRESUMPTION THAT, YES, THAT IS GOING TO BE CLEARED UP AND THAT IS THE CASE. IF IT ISN'T, THEN OBVIOUSLY THAT WOULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT UPON THE SCORING. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: WHAT IS THE SQUARE FOOT OF THIS PROJECT? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THERE'S TWO PROJECTS, PROJECT 1 AND PROJECT 2. AND THE FIRST PROJECT IS APPROXIMATELY 2500 SQUARE FEET, AND THE SECOND IS 1211. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS IT SAYS THE TOTAL COST OF RENOVATION OF WHATEVER THEY LEASE IS 20 MILLION. THE PROPOSED PROJECT, WHICH IS THE 2500 SQUARE FEET, WOULD RENOVATE AN ADDITIONAL 2500 SQUARE FEET. SO IS THE 20 MILLION SPENT ON OTHER SQUARE FOOTAGE? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THAT'S CORRECT. IN THE RFA ANY FUNDS THAT WERE SPENT FOR A SIMILAR PROJECT FOR A STEM CELL LAB COULD BE COUNTED AFTER JANUARY '05. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: EVEN IF IT'S NOT SPECIFICALLY TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT WAS SUBMITTED? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THAT'S CORRECT. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: CHAIR, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD THAT THERE WAS A THIRD ISSUE THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE WAS A MOTION. THIS IS THE ISSUE OF THE DESIGN COST BEING OVER -- I'M SORRY -- THIS IS THE ISSUE OF THE DESIGN COSTS HAVING BEEN INCURRED AND THEY'RE SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT AS OPPOSED TO USING THAT AS A MATCH, WHICH WOULD, OF COURSE, HELP TO SOLVE THE MATCHING ISSUE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WHAT IS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON THIS ISSUE? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THAT I THINK AS A POLICY ISSUE, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THIS HAS SHOWN UP ANYWHERE ELSE ON ANY OF THE OTHER APPLICATIONS, BUT, IN FACT, IN THIS INSTANCE, THESE FUNDS SHOULD NOT BE REIMBURSED, BUT SHOULD BE USED AS AN INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT FROM THE APPLICANT. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: AS MATCHING, RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT YOU MEAN FOR INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THAT'S CORRECT. IN FACT, THE CIRM FUNDS WOULD BE REDUCED BY THE $60,000. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I WOULD CONCUR WITH THAT. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I WOULD SO MOVE THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SECOND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO DO WE NEED A VOTE ON THAT? SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. | ||||||||
| GREAT. IF EVERYONE COULD JOT DOWN THEIR PRELIMINARY SCORES, AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT APPLICATION. I'LL GIVE YOU ONE MINUTE TO FINALIZE THIS. RICK, WOULD THAT BE 519? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THAT IS CORRECT. THIS WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO ASK MEMBER FEIT, TO INVITE HER BACK INTO THE ROOM. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: PLEASE, IF YOU COULD HAVE SOMEONE FIND HER. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: RECUSALS ON 519 ARE LANSING, SHEEHY, AND HOFFMAN. | ||||||||
| (MEMBERS LANSING AND SHEEHY AND STAFF MEMBER HOFFMAN ARE RECUSED FROM APPLICATION 519 AND ARE NOT PRESENT IN THE ROOM.) | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THE PROPOSAL IS FOR A SHARED RESEARCH LABORATORY ONLY AND REQUESTS 1,423,775 FOR CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT. | ||||||||
| THE ONLY ISSUE THAT WE HAVE IS ONE OF MATCHING FUNDS WHEREIN THE PROJECT THAT IS CITED AS A SIMILAR PROJECT IN TERMS OF STEM CELL RESEARCH PROJECT IS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING WHICH THE SHARED LAB IS TO BE LOCATED IN. SO BASICALLY THIS APPLICANT IS SUGGESTING THAT A PRO RATA SHARE OF A BUILDING IS A QUALIFYING MATCH UNDER THE RFA, AND WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S THE CASE. SO WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT, UNDER YOUR PREVIOUS PROCEDURES, THAT A MOTION TO IDENTIFY AN APPROPRIATE MATCH SIMILAR TO THE OTHER PROPOSALS WOULD BE IN ORDER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I WILL PUT FORTH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AS THE MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: SECOND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: JANET WRIGHT IS THE SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? I GUESS NOT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. ANY OPPOSED? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I DID MISSPEAK WHEN I SAID THIS WAS THE ONLY ISSUE. THERE IS ALSO AN ISSUE OF A MINOR AMOUNT. IN ORDER TO BE CONSISTENT, WE LOOKED AT THE 25-PERCENT ADMINISTRATIVE FEE AS A STRICT NOT TO EXCEED NUMBER. IN THIS CASE IT'S $4,000 OVER THAT AMOUNT, BUT IT IS OVER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO WHAT IS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YOU WOULD ADOPT A SIMILAR MOTION TO CASES WHERE THE FINANCIAL DEFECT IS THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN AND CONTINGENCY EXCEED THE RFA GUIDELINE OF 25 PERCENT; THEREFORE, WE WOULD REDUCE THE CIRM-FUNDED AMOUNT BY THAT AMOUNT, AND THE INSTITUTION WOULD MAKE THAT AMOUNT AN INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I'D LIKE TO PUT FORTH THE MOTION ACCEPTING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON THIS ISSUE. DO I HAVE A SECOND? | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: SECOND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? OKAY. THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. | ||||||||
| SO THE REVIEWERS ARE -- THIS WOULD BE ED KASHIAN AS PRIMARY AND JANET WRIGHT. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: ARE YOU GETTING TIRED OF ME? THANK YOU. I RATED THIS IN THE ABOVE AVERAGE, BUT NOT OUTSTANDING. THE WEAKNESS FROM MY POINT OF VIEW WAS IN THEIR COMMITMENT IN TERMS OF MATCHING FUNDS. EVEN IF THEY MEET OUR LOWER STANDARDS, I FEEL THAT IT HAS A LOWER POTENTIAL. I THINK THAT THE COST IS ABOVE AVERAGE, AND HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE IS EXCELLENT, AND THE RESPONSIVENESS IS EXCELLENT. HOWEVER, THE COMMITMENT OF FUNDS AND THE TIMELINE IS GOOD. THE COMMITMENT TO FUNDS IS A WEAKNESS FROM MY POINT OF VIEW. OVERALL RESPONSIVENESS -- OVERALL SCORE FOR ME WAS ABOVE AVERAGE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, ED. ANY QUESTIONS FOR ED? JANET.DR. WRIGHT: I WILL ADMIT TO HAVING AN EMOTIONAL REACTION TO THIS PROPOSAL BECAUSE IT SEEMED TO ME THAT THE PERSON WRITING THIS, AND HOPEFULLY THE INSTITUTION REALLY GOT THE IDEA BEHIND THIS RFA OF ENCOURAGING BUILDING A COMMUNITY OF SCIENTISTS AND SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY TO THAT. SO I DEFINITELY RATED IT HIGH IN TERMS OF INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT AND ALSO RESPONSIVENESS. AND I FEEL LESS QUALIFIED TO COMMENT ON THE OTHER THINGS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. THANK YOU, JANET. SO, RICK, CAN STAFF KIND OF MAYBE PERHAPS TOUCH ON SOME OF THE FACTORS ON THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I THINK WHEN WE LOOKED AT IT, WE THOUGHT THAT THE COST BASIS WAS PRETTY MUCH WHAT YOU WOULD FIND IN A LABORATORY SETTING IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT WAS RELATED TO PLUMBING, HVAC, AND ELECTRICAL. THE COST PER ASSIGNABLE SQUARE FOOT RELATIVE TO NEW CONSTRUCTION WAS ABOUT 46 PERCENT, WHICH, AGAIN, FOR LABORATORY WOULD BE ABOUT EXPECTED. THAT DOESN'T COUNT THE COST OF THE ACTUAL BUILDING. IT'S SIMPLY THE COST OF THE RENOVATIONS TO PROVIDE FOR THE STEM CELL. | ||||||||
| I THINK THE TIMELINE AND SCHEDULE IS PRETTY MUCH CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU HAVE WITH A COMPLETION IN APRIL OF 2008, WHICH IS PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT FASTER THAN SOME OF THE OTHERS, BUT IT IS A REASONABLE, AGGRESSIVE SCHEDULE. | ||||||||
| AND I THINK I'VE GONE OVER THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT ISSUE RELATIVE TO THE BUILDING COSTS AND HOW THEY'RE BEING COUNTED. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. ANY MAJOR ISSUES? ANYTHING JUMP OUT? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: JUST THE TWO ISSUES THAT WE HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT IN TERMS OF THE $4400 FOR THE EXCESS ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND THE RESOLUTION OF THE MATCH. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: RESPONSIVENESS-WISE, HOW DID STAFF VIEW THIS APPLICATION? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: FROM THE STANDPOINT OF DEVELOPING A SHARED RESEARCH LABORATORY, IT WAS RESPONSIVE. AND, OF COURSE, THERE WAS NO TECHNIQUES COURSE PROPOSED. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU, RICK. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS REGARDING APPLICATION 519? GREAT. SO LET'S TAKE A MINUTE TO WRITE DOWN OUR PRELIMINARY SCORES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I THINK THE STAFF IS INVITING MR. SHEEHY BACK INTO THE ROOM. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THIS WOULD BE APPLICATION 520. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: 520, AND THE RECUSALS HERE ARE MEMBER LANSING AND STAFF MEMBER HOFFMAN. | ||||||||
| (MEMBER LANSING AND STAFF MEMBER HOFFMAN ARE RECUSED FROM APPLICATION 520 AND NOT PRESENT IN THE ROOM.) | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THE PROPOSAL IS A SHARED LABORATORY WITH CIRM FUNDING OF 1,842,714. THE PROPOSAL ALSO INCLUDES SPACE THAT WOULD BE SHARED USE FOR A TECHNIQUES COURSE AND, THEREFORE, EQUIPMENT FUNDS OF 499,265 ARE ALSO PROPOSED UNDER THE TECHNIQUES COURSE ELEMENT. ALTHOUGH THAT, AS I MENTIONED, IS ENTIRELY EQUIPMENT FUNDING. | ||||||||
| WE HAVE UNDER THE STAFF ANALYSIS TWO ISSUES THAT WE WANT TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION. ONE IS THAT UNDER THE ISSUE OF RESPONSIVENESS, WE QUESTIONED HOW THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP MAY ADDRESS THE FACT THAT A PORTION OF THE PLANNED INVESTMENT IS IN LEASE SPACE THAT HAS A TERM THAT IS TO EXPIRE WITHIN THREE YEARS. UNDER THAT SCENARIO, WE DON'T BELIEVE -- THE RFA SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED INFORMATION IF IMPROVEMENTS WERE TO BE MADE IN LEASED SPACE AND TO BE SUFFICIENTLY AMORTIZED. WE WOULD WANT TO SEE EVIDENCE THAT IT'S SECURED FOR THEIR USE FOR A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME, HOPEFULLY BEYOND THE THREE-YEAR TERM OF THE SHARED LABORATORY. | ||||||||
| ALSO, ON THE MATCHING FUNDS -- THIS IS THE SOMEWHAT UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED IN THE STAFF ANALYSIS, SO YOU HAVE NOT REVIEWED THIS REMEDY BEFORE. OUR SUGGESTION IS THAT CIRM SHOULD INSIST THAT LEASE TERM IS EXTENDED FOR A MINIMUM TERM OF FIVE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE GRANT APPROVAL. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO IS THAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO IS THAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: AND THAT WOULD BE UNDER THE SAME CATEGORY OF TECHNICAL ISSUES? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THIS WOULD BE IN THE SAME CATEGORY THAT IF THIS DEFECT IS RESOLVED, THAT YOU WOULD NOT CONSIDER THAT, SIMILAR TO OUR PREVIOUS DISCUSSION OF STAFF ISSUES THAT ARE OF A FINANCIAL NATURE, THAT YOU WOULDN'T CONSIDER THIS ISSUE. YOU WOULD EVALUATE THE PROPOSAL, RATHER, UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS HAS BEEN RESOLVED. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IF I CAN ASK A QUESTION. BY MEMORY, IT'S ABOUT 290,000 CONSTRUCTION. THE REST IS MOVABLE EQUIPMENT; IS THAT CORRECT? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THERE'S ACTUALLY TWO SITES RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION. THERE'S LEASE SPACE WHERE THE 290 OCCURS, AND THEN THERE'S ALSO IMPROVEMENTS AT THE INSTITUTION'S MAIN CAMPUS THAT WOULD INVOLVE IMPROVEMENTS TO OWNED PROPERTY IN TERMS OF THE VIVARIUM IMPROVEMENTS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THAT'S CORRECT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THE ISSUE ARISES AS TO WHERE THE 290,000 IS, AND THE REST OF THE INVESTMENT AT THAT SITE IS MOVABLE EQUIPMENT; IS THAT RIGHT? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I BELIEVE SO, YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SO A QUESTION FOR YOU. THIS IS GOING TO BE A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE, BUT COULDN'T WE -- THIS IS A GOOD APPLICATION OVERALL FROM ANY OF MY INDIVIDUAL PERSPECTIVES, SO I'D LIKE TO SEE IT PRESERVED, BUT COULDN'T WE HAVE A RESOLUTION IN THE ALTERNATIVE SO THAT THE MOTION WOULD STATE THAT THEY EITHER AGREE TO EXTEND THE LEASE FOR FIVE YEARS FROM, I WOULD SAY FROM THE DATE THAT THE SITE IS COMPLETED, SO YOU GET THE USE OF IT TO AMORTIZE IT OVER THE FIVE YEARS. SO FIVE YEARS FROM THE DATE THE IMPROVEMENT IS COMPLETED, OR THEY CAN COMMIT TO MOVE THE MOVABLE EQUIPMENT INTO DEDICATED STEM CELL RESEARCH SPACE AT THE TIME THE LEASE IS EXPIRED AND PAY BACK THE 290,000. THAT WOULD PROTECT OUR INVESTMENT AND MAKE SURE THAT THE INVESTMENT THAT STAYS OUT IS, IN FACT, EFFECTIVELY USED FOR STEM CELL RESEARCH. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: CAN I COMMENT AS THE PRIMARY REVIEWER? IT APPEARS THAT THIS IS A PURPOSEFUL SHORT-TERM LEASE IN THAT THEY JUST ENTERED INTO IT FOR A SHORT DURATION. AND THEY SAY IT'S THE FIRST LEASE THAT IT HAS ON THIS LAB SPACE IN THIS BUILDING, BUT THEY HAVE LEASED OTHER SPACE IN THIS BUILDING SINCE 2001. AND THEY DO SAY THERE ARE NO ONGOING NEGOTIATIONS TO EXTEND THE LEASE AND FEEL IT'S TOO EARLY TO DO SO, BUT THEY DO SUGGEST THAT THEY'RE COMMITTED TO THIS. AND, IN FACT, COMMITTED SUCH THAT THE SHORT-TERM SPACE IS MEANT TO BE TEMPORARY IN THE HOPES OF BUILDING A LONG-TERM SPACE. | ||||||||
| SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS SOMETHING -- IT DOESN'T SEEM TO ME THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE CENTER IS WANTING TO BE IN FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME WITH A LONG-TERM OPTION OF BUILDING A PERMANENT SITE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AND I HAVE THE SAME CONCLUSION WHERE IF THE EQUIPMENT IS MOVED TO THE LONG-TERM SITE AND DEDICATED TO STEM CELL RESEARCH SPACE, WE GET THE VALUE OUT OF THAT, SHARED. IT'S GOT TO BE DEDICATED IN A SHARED VENUE. AND I THINK THAT'S A VERY ACUTELY FOCUSED AND APPROPRIATE REFINEMENT. BECAUSE OUR MISSION IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THE SHARED USE FOR A LONGER TERM. | ||||||||
| SO AS LONG AS WE RECOVER THE 290,000, TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY DO NOT EXTEND THIS LEASE, WE'RE PROTECTED, AND WE'RE GETTING A SHARED FACILITY AND SHARED EQUIPMENT, WHICH IS OUR MISSION. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: THEY SPECIFICALLY STATE THEY'VE LIMITED THEIR REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION AND PUT MORE OF IT INTO EQUIPMENT WITH THE VERY NOTION OF BEING ABLE TO MOVE IT TO A LONG-TERM SITE. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR BOB. JUST FROM A POLICY STANDPOINT, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOUR SUGGESTION WOULD APPLY IN THIS CASE, BUT THIS MAY NOT COME UP IN OTHER PROPOSALS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THIS IS THE ONLY CASE THAT STAFF HAS IDENTIFIED WHERE THIS IS AN ISSUE. SO IT'S CUSTOM TAILORED TO PROTECT OUR INTEREST IN THIS SPECIFIC SITUATION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BOB, I THINK I'D LIKE TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE RECESS TO CONSULT WITH STAFF ON THIS ISSUE. I THINK THIS IS -- JOAN, WELCOME. WELCOME. I THINK I NEED TO GET SOME INPUT FROM STAFF ON THIS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: WE STAND IN RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. | ||||||||
| (A RECESS WAS TAKEN.) | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. SO REGARDING APPLICATION 520, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO DEAL WITH THIS TECHNICAL FINANCIAL ISSUE? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: MY MOTION IS IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AND I'LL EXPLAIN WHY IT'S IN THE ALTERNATIVE. MY MOTION IS TO EITHER, A, EXTEND THE LEASE FOR FIVE YEARS FROM THE DATE THE FACILITY IS COMPLETED, NOT THE DATE OF THE AWARD, BUT FIVE YEARS FROM THE DATE THE FACILITY IS COMPLETED SO WE GET A LONG-TERM USE OF THE FACILITY, WHICH IS WHAT WE INTEND. OR, AS DEBORAH POINTS OUT, IT'S QUITE CLEAR THAT THERE'S AN INTENT TO BE ABLE TO MOVE TO A MORE PERMANENT FACILITY, WHICH IS A BENEFIT TO OUR MISSION. IT'S A BENEFIT BECAUSE IT'S LONGER THAN FIVE YEARS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARILY CLEAR. I THINK IT'S OPEN TO -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IT'S MY INTERPRETATION, WHICH IS WHY I FEEL WE SHOULD HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE CURE, WHICH THE ALTERNATIVE CURE IS ON THE PORTION OF THE SPACE THAT IS WHERE THERE'S -- WHICH IS UNDER THE LEASE WHERE THERE'S CONSTRUCTION, WHICH IS, I BELIEVE, A $290,000 AMOUNT; IS THAT CORRECT, STAFF? THAT IF THE LEASE IS NOT EXTENDED, EXTENDED SPECIFICALLY FOR A SHARED LAB USE, WHICH IS OUR MISSION HERE, THAT THE 290,000 WOULD BE PAID BACK, SO WE PROTECT THOSE FUNDS FOR THIS MISSION, AND THE MOVABLE EQUIPMENT, AS THE VICE CHAIR HAS SAID, HAS TO BE MOVED TO A LOCATION FOR A SHARED LAB USE, SHARED STEM CELL LAB USE. | ||||||||
| SO IT IS IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AND THE REASON I PUT IT IN THE ALTERNATIVE IS BECAUSE IT IS TO OUR BENEFIT THAT THEY BUILD A MORE PERMANENT SPACE BECAUSE THEN WE GET THE EQUIPMENT IN A LONG-TERM SPACE DEDICATED TO OUR MISSION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BOB, I'D LIKE TO OFFER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THIS MOTION, THAT THE WORKING GROUP IS OPEN TO HAVING CURABLE TECHNICAL ISSUES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF THE GRANT APPLICATIONS THAT ARE SIMILAR IN NATURE TO WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IF OTHERS ARE RAISED DURING OUR DISCUSSIONS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK WE'VE UNIFORMLY PROVIDED EVERYONE SOLUTIONS FOR TECHNICAL FINANCIAL SITUATIONS LIKE THIS. THIS IS A UNIFORM APPROACH TO EVERYONE, AND IN THIS SITUATION THESE FACTS WOULD REQUIRE THIS TYPE OF SOLUTION TO GIVE THEM THE SAME OPPORTUNITY THAT EVERYONE ELSE HAS BEEN GIVEN TO CURE TECHNICAL FINANCIAL ISSUES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I WOULD SAY I FOLLOW YOUR REASONING UP TO A CERTAIN POINT, AND SO I WOULD RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE INSOMUCH AS HOW IT DEVIATES FROM WHAT WE'VE DONE PREVIOUSLY. | ||||||||
| AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WHAT WE'VE DONE PREVIOUSLY IS WE HAVE TOLD THE APPLICANTS COMPLY WITH THIS CONDITION OR YOU DON'T GET THE GRANT. AND IT'S BEEN ONE ACT THAT THEY'VE HAD TO DO TO COMPLY. HERE WE'RE PROVIDING THE APPLICANT A CHOICE. YOU CAN DO EITHER A OR YOU CAN DO B, AND MAYBE IT'S A SUBTLE DIFFERENCE, AND IT'S A DIFFERENCE WITHOUT A DISTINCTION, BUT IT IS A DIFFERENCE. | ||||||||
| SECONDLY, MY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FIRST POINT OF YOUR MOTION, BOB, THAT IS, WITH THE LEASE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO STAY FOR FIVE YEARS. IT'S BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THEY WOULD MAINTAIN THEIR EXISTING LEASEHOLD, MEANING WHAT IF THERE WAS A LEASE MODIFICATION? WHAT IF THEY DOWNSIZED THE SPACE? ALL THESE THINGS THAT CAN HAPPEN IN A LEASEHOLD SITUATION. NOW, WE'RE PRESENTED WITH THESE CHALLENGES BECAUSE WE KNOW IN THREE YEARS THIS LEASE WILL EXPIRE. IT IS PRESENTING US WITH SOME UNIQUE CHALLENGES. I JUST WANT TO WALK IT THROUGH A LITTLE BIT MORE, GET SOME MORE UNDERSTANDING, AND APPRECIATE, IN MY MIND, THE DISTINCTIONS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: COUNSEL? | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: IN ALL THESE CASES WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO COME UP WITH A UNIFORM WAY OF DEALING WITH THESE ISSUES, AND THIS IS REALLY A STOPGAP IN OUR PROCEDURES. I TOO HAVE SOME CONCERN ABOUT OFFERING AN ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION IN A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVEN'T PREVIOUSLY OFFERED AN ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION TO OTHER APPLICANTS. AGAIN, AT SOME LEVEL IT JUST INCREASES THE VARIABLES. SO IF THERE IS A SINGLE SOLUTION THAT WE THINK WILL WORK FOR THE APPLICANT, MY ADVICE WOULD BE TO TRY TO FIND THAT, BUT CERTAINLY THERE'S NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT OFFERING AN ALTERNATIVE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ED, YOU HAD SOME COMMENTS. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: ROBERT, I TEND TO AGREE WITH DAVID IN THAT WE SHOULD GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY, AS WE HAVE EVERYONE ELSE, TO CURE THIS DEFECT, BUT WE SHOULDN'T OFFER SUGGESTIONS, ESPECIALLY ONE OF PAYING MONEY BACK. IN OUR HOUSEHOLD WHEN I WAS GROWING UP, THERE WAS A GOLDEN RULE. WHOEVER HAD THE GOLDEN RULE. GETTING MONEY BACK IS GOING TO BE A MAJOR PROBLEM, AND IT WILL BE AN ABSOLUTE ECSTASY FOR LAWYERS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, ED. BOB. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: GETTING $290,000 BACK FROM AN INSTITUTION OF THIS SIZE, WHEN IT'S SO MUCH IN THEIR INTEREST TO HAVE A LONG-TERM RELATIONSHIP WITH THIS AGENCY, I THINK, WOULD SOLVE ITSELF. THE ONLY REASON I'M PROVIDING AN OPTION IS IT'S IN THE INTEREST OF THE AGENCY TO ENCOURAGE THEM, IN FACT, TO GET THIS INTO A PERMANENT FACILITY. SO THAT IS AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION. | ||||||||
| IF I WANTED TO MAKE IT ONLY -- IF I WANTED TO LIMIT IT TO JUST EXTENSION OF THE LEASE, WE WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM, BUT WE WOULDN'T CREATE SOME OPPORTUNITY FOR ADDITIONAL BENEFIT FOR OUR AGENCY AND OUR MISSION, AND THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE ADDITIONAL OPTION. NOT TO BENEFIT THEM, BUT TO BENEFIT OUR MISSION AND THE AGENCY. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT'S THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT AN APPELLANT WILL MAKE IN PERHAPS FILING A PROTEST. THERE COULD HAVE BEEN AN ALTERNATIVE B THAT YOU DIDN'T CONSIDER, WORKING GROUP; AND, THEREFORE, I WAS DEPRIVED OF THAT OPPORTUNITY. THAT WOULD BE THE BASIS OF A PROTEST. THAT'S MY CONCERN, BOB. THAT'S ALL. BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT ACROSS THE BOARD, THAT CREATES A SITUATION IN WHICH A PARTY HAS A STANDING TO MAKE A PROTEST. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I SHARE THE SENSE OF UNEASE ABOUT ALTERNATIVES AND THE CLARITY, THE ATTRACTION OF CLARITY WITH ONE RECOMMENDED CHOICE TO REMEDY THIS. COULD PERHAPS THE STAFF OR DEBORAH, SOMEONE, SPEAK TO THE UNIQUENESS OF THIS SITUATION, WHICH MIGHT INFLUENCE ME TO OFFER ALTERNATIVES? HOW LIKELY ARE WE TO ENCOUNTER THIS SPECIFIC SITUATION? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I THINK THE ISSUE IS TWOFOLD. ONE IS THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE OF LEASING, BUT I THINK THE ARGUMENT THAT WAS ADVANCED WAS THAT IT'S A MATTER OF HAVING A SECOND CHOICE, BEING WHETHER IT IS A CHOICE TO PAY BACK FOR UNALLOWED EQUIPMENT OR WHATEVER. SO I'M NOT REALLY ABLE -- IN TERMS OF THE LEASE ISSUE, THIS IS PROBABLY THE ONLY PROPOSAL WHERE WE HAVE THIS CIRCUMSTANCE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO IF THERE'S NO FURTHER COMMENTS, THERE IS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR BOB'S MOTION? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: SECOND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I HAVE A FEELING WE MAY WANT TO CALL ROLL ON THIS ONE. AT YOUR CONVENIENCE. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: MARCY FEIT. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: I DON'T KNOW. I'LL ABSTAIN FOR THE MOMENT. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: ROBERT KLEIN. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YES. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: JOAN SAMUELSON. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: PASS. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: JEFF SHEEHY. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: YES. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: ABSTAIN. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: JANET WRIGHT. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: YES. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: DEBORAH HYSEN. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: YES. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: EDWARD KASHIAN. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: NO. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: DAVID LICHTENGER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: MARCY FEIT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: DO YOU WANT TO KNOW THE VOTE COUNT? WOULD THAT HELP MAKE THE DECISION? | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: NO. IT'S JUST THAT I APPRECIATE BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT. I USUALLY DON'T GET AT AN IMPASSE. IT'S THE FIRST TIME FOR ME. I'LL SAY YES. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: JUST WANTED TO CIRCLE BACK WITH MEMBER SAMUELSON. JOAN SAMUELSON. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: YES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SORRY, JOAN. YOU PASSED. I GOT YOU. SO THE MOTION CARRIES. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: MOTION CARRIES, SEVEN YESES, ONE NO, AND ONE ABSTENTION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I WOULD JUST LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, AS I MENTIONED TO BOB, THAT THIS WORKING GROUP IS OPEN TO OTHER TECHNICAL ISSUES, FINANCIAL TECHNICAL ISSUES, THAT MAY ARISE DURING OUR DISCUSSION. SO THIS IS NOT AN EXCEPTION. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT OUR GOAL IS TO PROMOTE STEM CELL RESEARCH; AND IF IT FURTHERS THE GOALS OF THE INSTITUTE, THEN WE CAN MAKE EXCEPTIONS THAT ARE TECHNICAL IN NATURE ANYWAY, SO I THINK WE CAN NOW GO TO THE REVIEWS OF THIS APPLICATION 520. THAT WOULD BE DEBORAH HYSEN AS THE PRIMARY REVIEWER. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER ISSUE ON THIS, ANOTHER STAFF ISSUE? I THOUGHT YOU DID, MATCHING FUNDS ISSUE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES. THE MATCHING FUND ISSUE IS THE ONE THAT WE JUST CALLED OUT. IT'S A BIT ON THE EDGE AGAIN ON THE BASIS THAT THE AMOUNT OF FUNDS THAT ARE IDENTIFIED ARE A COMBINATION OF THREE SOURCES. THERE'S CASH CONTRIBUTION FOR THE MATCH. THERE'S ALSO IN-KIND DONATION OF EQUIPMENT, AND WE THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS KIND OF AN AREA WHERE IT WAS DIFFICULT, THAT ALL OF THIS MATCHING FUNDING IS BASICALLY PRIOR EXPENDITURES THAT ARE KIND OF FOR THE EQUIPMENT PORTION. AND SO WE WANTED THE WORKING GROUP TO BE AWARE OF THAT AND IF IT PROMPTED ANY KIND OF ISSUES FOR YOU. I DON'T THINK THERE'S A REMEDY HERE BECAUSE TECHNICALLY IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: RICK, COULD YOU GIVE A LITTLE MORE GRANULARITY TO THAT ISSUE? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: SO THERE'S NO ISSUE WITH CASH, RIGHT? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I THINK WHAT I MISSPOKE WAS THAT THERE'S 362,000 IN EQUIPMENT WHERE THEY'VE OUT AND OUT PURCHASED THE EQUIPMENT WITH CASH. SO THAT WAS THE MISSTATEMENT THAT I MADE. | ||||||||
| AND THEN THERE'S TENANT IMPROVEMENTS OF 61,000, GIFTS IN-KIND OF 71,000, WHICH MARGINALLY EXCEEDS THE 20-PERCENT REQUIREMENT. WE'RE JUST CONCERNED ABOUT SOME OF THE ISSUES OF HOW -- THAT THERE'S A DIFFICULTY IN VALUING, I THINK, SOME OF THIS IN-KIND EQUIPMENT DONATION, AND WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD WANT TO -- OR IF THE COMMITTEE HAS ANY STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT HOW THAT SHOULD BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN EQUIPMENT THAT'S OUT AND OUT PURCHASED AND THEN CLAIMED AS PART OF THE MATCH. THAT'S ABOUT AS GRANULAR AS I CAN GET, CHAIRMAN. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO THESE GIFTS IN-KIND, THERE'S NO SPECIFIC INFORMATION, DEBORAH, ON THESE GIFTS IN-KIND? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: IT'S NOT THE ONLY APPLICATION THAT I RECEIVED THAT HAD PRIOR EXPENDITURES OF EQUIPMENT THAT ARE TO BE USED AS A MATCH; IS THAT CORRECT? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THAT'S CORRECT. BUT THIS IS THE ONLY ONE THAT I'M AWARE OF WHERE A PORTION OF THE VALUE IS BASICALLY AN IN-KIND DONATION TO THE APPLICANT THAT THEN IS VALUED BY THE APPLICANT. AND IT HAS THAT -- IT STARTS GETTING PRETTY FAR REMOVED FROM THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, THAT SOMEBODY GAVE THEM EQUIPMENT AND NOW IT BECOMES PART OF THE CIRM. AND IT'S NOT A MATTER OF ITS -- I THINK IT'S KIND OF A POLICY ISSUE IN TERMS OF DOES THAT GIVE YOU ANY PAUSE IN TERMS OF HOW YOU CONSIDER MATCHING FUNDS? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WHAT WAS THE PERCENTAGE MATCH? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: THIS IS NOT A HIGH PERCENTAGE, AS I RECALL. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THEY'RE A 22-PERCENT MATCH FROM THESE SOURCES; AND AS I SAID, THERE'S A COMBINATION OF EQUIPMENT PURCHASES, TENANT IMPROVEMENTS, THE GIFT IN-KIND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IF WE TOOK OUT THE GIFT IN-KIND, WHAT WOULD THE PERCENTAGE BE? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I'M GOING TO HAVE TO CALCULATE THAT BECAUSE IT INVOLVES A STEM CELL COURSE TOO. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO USUALLY WE LIKE TO HAVE THESE MOTIONS BEFORE WE REVIEW. I THINK IN THIS CASE, IF IT'S OKAY WITH COUNSEL, WE'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND PROCEED WITH THE REVIEW, AND WE CAN CIRCLE BACK ON THIS ISSUE BEFORE VOTING. GREAT. DEBORAH, IF YOU COULD GO AHEAD AND DO YOUR REVIEW NOW. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, DESPITE OF THE CONCERNS OF THE STAFF ANALYSIS, THIS IS ACTUALLY ONE OF MY HIGHEST RATED APPLICATIONS. QUALITATIVELY IT STOOD APART FROM THE OTHERS JUST IN THE SHEAR DETAIL. IT DOES HAVE SOME ISSUES, AND I'LL GO INTO THAT AS THE CATEGORY COMES THROUGH. | ||||||||
| THE LEASE SPACE ISSUE DID GIVE ME SOME CAUSE FOR CONCERN. I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE SEEN A MINIMUM LEASE TERM THAT WE DEFINED AS LONG TERM BECAUSE WE SAID THAT IT SHOULD GUARANTEE LONG-TERM ACCESS TO THE SPACE. AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE TO HAVE A STATED TERM SO THAT WE COULD COMPARE THAT TO. IN THIS CASE IT RUNS THROUGH '09, WHICH IS CERTAINLY NOT LONG-TERM GIVEN THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE OPERATIONAL UNTIL, I THINK, THE BEGINNING OF '08. THEY DID INDICATE THAT THEY HAVE -- THAT THEY WILL PROVIDE A LONG-TERM COMMITMENT TO THE SHARED LAB FACILITY, MAYBE NOT NECESSARILY IN THIS PARTICULAR LEASED SPACE. THEY ALSO INDICATE THAT THEY DON'T INTEND TO NEGOTIATE TO EXTEND THE LEASE CURRENTLY BEYOND THE 2009 TIMEFRAME, AND THAT SEEMS TO BE PRIMARILY BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LONG-TERM COMMITMENT TO BUILD A NEW FACILITY. | ||||||||
| SO I DIDN'T DOWNGRADE THEM SIGNIFICANTLY FOR NOT HAVING A LONG-TERM LEASE. AND MAINLY BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS A TENANT THAT ANY LANDLORD WOULD WANT TO HAVE. AND I CAN'T IMAGINE A LANDLORD NOT COMMITTING TO CONTINUING THE LEASE. THE INVESTMENTS THAT WOULD BE MADE IN A LAB FACILITY ARE SO MUCH DIFFERENT THAN A TYPICAL OFFICE SPACE, AND YOU REALLY CAN'T LEVERAGE THOSE FOR A NEW TENANT. SO I FELT IT WOULD BE IN THE LANDLORD'S BEST INTEREST TO COOPERATE WITH THEM. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DEBORAH, I THINK WE HAVE TO ASSUME, BECAUSE THE MOTION PASSED, THAT LEASE WILL BE EXTENDED. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: THERE'S WAYS THEY CAN DO THAT. IF THEY'RE NOT INTERESTED IN GOING FIVE YEARS BECAUSE OF THIS NEW FACILITY, THEY COULD POSSIBLY NEGOTIATE. AND ACTUALLY THAT'S A QUESTION I HAVE. COULD THEY NEGOTIATE AN OPTION TO TERMINATE EARLY WITH THE LANDLORD SUCH THAT THEY COULD MOVE INTO A NEW FACILITY? THAT IS ONE OPTION. IT GIVES THEM SOME FLEXIBILITY TO FULLY REALIZE THE VALUE OF THAT INVESTMENT, BUT NOT TIE THEIR HANDS TO MOVE INTO A NEW FACILITY. THAT MIGHT BE A SUGGESTION FOR THEM. BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO TIE THEM INTO A FIVE-YEAR LEASE IF INSTEAD THEY COULD MOVE INTO A LONG-TERM FACILITY.FROM A FEASIBILITY STANDPOINT, I RATED FAIRLY HIGH, KNOWING, HOWEVER, THAT THAT LEASE ISSUE DOES CAUSE CONCERN. IN FACT, IN GENERAL, I WOULD RATHER HAVE STATE-OWNED OR OWNED SPACE VERSUS LEASED SPACE. JUST THE COMPLICATION OF A LANDLORD JUST ADDS ANOTHER COMPONENT. BUT, AGAIN, I RATED IT HIGH. | ||||||||
| COST PER SQUARE FOOT, I FELT THE PROJECT SCOPE IS VERY, VERY DETAILED. AND I FELT THAT THE COSTS WERE REALLY IN RANGE WITH THE OTHER APPLICANTS THAT I RECEIVED. IT DEFINITELY LEVERAGES EXISTING SPACE, AND IT DOES APPEAR TO BE A VERY EFFICIENT LAYOUT OF THE FACILITY. SO I FELT THAT -- I RATED THIS IN THE ABOVE AVERAGE SCORE. | ||||||||
| TIMELINE AND MILESTONES, THE CONSTRUCTION IS ESTIMATED TO TAKE ABOUT THREE MONTHS WITH A COMPLETION OF APRIL OF '08. THIS SUBMITTAL IS SO THOROUGH, I REALLY FELT VERY CONFIDENT THAT THEY COULD MEET THEIR TIMELINES, AND MILESTONES ARE VERY CLEAR IN ALL OF THE PHASES. I THINK THIS IS ONE THAT WAS PROPOSING A DESIGN BUILD MODEL, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT ALL OF THEM WERE. AND SO THAT YOU REALLY CAN EXPEDITE TIMEFRAMES BY ANYWHERE UP TO 30 PERCENT IN SOME CASES. SO I FELT THAT THAT WOULD BE REALISTIC IF THEY WERE, INDEED, USING A DESIGN BUILD MODEL. AND I LIKE TO SEE THEM GET THAT EXPERIENCE BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO SEE, WHEN WE AWARD BIGGER FACILITIES, THAT THEY START TO LOOK AT THOSE KINDS OF MODELS TO DELIVER BUILDINGS. I FELT THAT WAS -- I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE OTHERS, BUT THAT WAS MY ONLY APPLICATION THAT WAS DESIGN BUILD. | ||||||||
| THE INSTITUTIONAL LEVERAGE, IT MET THE 20 PERCENT IF YOU CONSIDER THE PRIOR MATCH. I ACTUALLY ASSIGNED THE SAME VALUE TO GIFT IN-KIND THAT I WOULD TO PRIOR EQUIPMENT PURCHASES. I FELT THAT THERE WAS A VALUE. THEY STATED THE VALUE. I THINK ALL OF THESE PRIOR EXPENDITURES, WE SHOULD BE DILIGENT IN QUESTIONING WHETHER OR NOT THOSE ARE, IN FACT, LEGITIMATE EXPENDITURES, AND THAT THE USEFUL LIFE HASN'T BEEN MAXIMIZED DURING THAT TIMEFRAME. SOME OF THESE USEFUL LIVES MAY BE TWO TO THREE YEARS; AND IF THEY'RE PURCHASED A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, THEY'VE BURNED THROUGH A LOT OF THAT TIME PERIOD. SO I FELT THAT THAT REALLY HAS TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S LOOKED AT FOR ALL CAPITAL EQUIPMENT PURCHASES. | ||||||||
| HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE, I GAVE THEM A VERY HIGH SCORE. THEY HAVE A TEAM ASSEMBLED ALREADY, AND THEY SEEM TO HAVE A REAL GOOD HANDLE ON WHAT THEY'RE PROCEEDING WITH. THEY DID NOT DISCUSS THE STAFF SUCCESS WITH PREVIOUS DESIGN BUILD PROJECTS. IN THEIR HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE, IT'S NOT CLEAR THAT THEY'RE ALL DESIGN BUILD. AND SO I FELT THAT THAT COULD HAVE BEEN ENHANCED A LITTLE BIT. | ||||||||
| OVERALL I THOUGHT THIS WAS AN EXTREMELY THOROUGH APPLICATION, AND I RATED IT THE HIGHEST SCORE FOR RESPONSIVENESS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, DEBORAH. JEFF, I BELIEVE YOU HAD THE SECONDARY REVIEW. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: AND I SCORED IT 80, AND THE LEASE WAS AN ISSUE. I KNOW WE HAD THE FIX, BUT I STILL -- I CAN ONLY GIVE IT AN AVERAGE SCORE FOR FEASIBILITY, SO I GAVE IT 10 FOR FEASIBILITY. I GAVE IT THE HIGHEST SCORE FOR COST, 20, BECAUSE IT WAS -- AND THIS KIND OF MITIGATED EVEN WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE LEASE FOR SOME OF THE LEASE. THIS WAS BY FAR THE LOWEST COST ONE IN MY BATCH. AND I THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS IMPRESSIVE. | ||||||||
| TIMELINE AND MILESTONES WERE GOOD. I GAVE THEM 20 FOR THAT. | ||||||||
| THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, 13, AVERAGE SCORE. THERE'S SOME AMBIGUITY THERE, AND I JUST DIDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE GIVING THEM A HIGH SCORE. | ||||||||
| HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE, I AGREE WITH DEBORAH, 10. | ||||||||
| RESPONSIVENESS, I ONLY SCORED THEM 7. AGAIN, IT'S THE ISSUE WITH THE LEASE THAT MADE ME FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE, SO THAT GIVES ME AN 80. THE ONE THING I DID DO WAS BUMP THEM UP TO 90 FOR THE TECHNIQUES COURSE, AND I WOULD EVEN POTENTIALLY GO UP HIGHER BECAUSE THE TECHNIQUES COURSE IS ONLY FOR THREE YEARS ANYWAY. SO THE LEASE ISSUE IS NOT RELEVANT THERE. | ||||||||
| OVERALL IT WAS A VERY STRONG PROPOSAL, BUT THE LEASE IS JUST SOMETHING THAT KIND OF THREW IT OUT OF WHACK FOR ME. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: LET ME JUST ADD THAT I WOULD ELEVATE BASED ON THE TECHNIQUES SCORE AS WELL. I JUST DIDN'T KNOW WHAT CATEGORIES TO ELEVATE THAT NUMBER, BUT I THINK IT REALLY BROUGHT IT TO ANOTHER LEVEL. THEIR TECHNIQUES COURSE WAS EXTREMELY THOROUGH IN ITS RESPONSE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU, DEBORAH. JEFF, THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE REVIEWERS? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: JUST WANTED TO REPORT BACK. YOU HAD ASKED THE QUESTION THAT IF THE IN-KIND DONATION WERE REMOVED FROM THE MATCH, WHERE WOULD THAT LEAVE THEM? THE CURRENT MATCH IS ABOUT $496,000. IF WE -- THAT'S 22 PERCENT. A MINIMUM MATCH OF 20 PERCENT WOULD BE 468,396. IF WE TAKE OUT THE IN-KIND, THE VALUE OF THE PURCHASED EQUIPMENT AND OTHER RENOVATIONS IS 424,728. SO IT WOULD BE A SHORTFALL OF 43,668 IN A MATCH THAT WOULD GET THEM TO 20 PERCENT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WE HAVE A RESOLUTION WE PASSED TO FIX THAT; IS THAT RIGHT? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: NO. YOU DEALT WITH THE LEASE, BUT DID NOT DEAL WITH THIS MATCH FUND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE MEMBERS. WOULD WE VIEW AN IN-KIND DONATION POTENTIALLY AS WE REVIEW ANY KIND OF PRIOR EXPENDITURE ON EQUIPMENT? I MEAN WOULD WE VALUE IT AND LOOK AT IT THAT SAME WAY, THE SAME WAY WE NEED TO VERIFY PRIOR EXPENDED FUNDS? | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: I'M JUST REAL UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THIS MATCH BECAUSE WE SAW THEIR GRANTS WHERE THERE WAS EXTREME LEVERAGE WITH CASH, AND THIS SEEMS TO BE JUST SKATING BY. AND I THINK FOR AN INSTITUTION LIKE THIS, THAT'S NOT APPROPRIATE. AND I THINK THAT IN-KIND IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE. WHEN YOU START SAYING WHAT'S THE VALUE, WELL, WHAT DID IT COST TO MANUFACTURE? HOW MUCH IS HIS COST? IS IT WHOLESALE? IS IT AT COST, YOU KNOW? DID THEY ADD THE SHIPPING IN? YOU GET INTO A SLIPPERY SLOPE OF WHAT IN-KIND REPRESENTS. I'M JUST -- I THINK THIS IS A ZERO FOR MATCH. I REALLY DO. I THINK THEY FELL VERY SHORT OF THE SPIRIT OF MATCH, AND THIS IS AN INSTITUTION THAT CAN AFFORD TO PUT SOME DOLLARS OUT HERE FOR LEVERAGE. I'M JUST DISAPPOINTED IN THAT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: MARCY, THANK YOU FOR THOSE INSIGHTFUL COMMENTS. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: MR. CHAIRMAN, IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO JUST READ THE ACTUAL REQUIREMENTS IN THE RFA. THE REQUIREMENT FOR MATCHING FUNDS CAN BE SATISFIED WHEN THE INSTITUTION CAN DOCUMENT FUNDS, EXCLUDING OTHER GRANT FUNDS, COMMITTED TO SIMILAR PROJECTS; I.E., RENOVATION OF LAB SPACE AND EQUIPMENT PURCHASE AFTER JANUARY 1, 2005. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: NOT DONATED, BUT PURCHASED. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I THINK I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS ISSUE. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: WAIT. CAN WE GO BACK? IS THIS THE ONLY APPLICATION, THEN, THAT WE'VE REVIEWED SO FAR THAT BROUGHT SOMETHING ELSE TO THE TABLE IN TERMS OF A MATCH? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: SO FAR. IN TERMS OF THE CREATIVITY OF THE APPLICANT? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: YOUR WORDS. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I THINK WE HAVE A COUPLE MORE TO GO IN -- | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: NONE SO FAR, BUT MORE TO COME | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: RIGHT. THERE MAY HAVE BEEN OTHERS THAT WERE WELL ABOVE THE 20 PERCENT; AND IF THERE WAS CITED MATCH THAT IN MY JUDGMENT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ON THE BORDERLINE FOR THE RFA DEFINITION, IF WE WOULD TAKE IT OFF, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE THE 20 PERCENT, I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS WORTH YOUR TIME. SO I MIGHT NOT HAVE POINTED THAT OUT TO YOU IF IT HAD A DE MINIMUS EFFECT ON YOUR DECISION. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: DO YOU FEEL THAT THE RFA WAS VERY CLEAR, THAT THIS KIND OF MATCH MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I THINK IN THE PARAGRAPH THAT I READ, I THINK EQUIPMENT PURCHASE WAS VERY CLEAR. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I HATE TO CUT THIS OFF, BUT WE DEFINITELY EXCEEDED OUR 15 MINUTES ON THIS ONE. UNLESS SOMEONE HAS SOME REALLY IMPORTANT FURTHER COMMENTS, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE AS A TECHNICAL FINANCIAL ISSUE AND THAT CIRM SHOULD REQUIRE THAT THE APPLICANT TO IDENTIFY AN APPROPRIATE SOURCE OF MATCHING FUNDS FOR THESE DOLLARS EQUAL TO OR EXCEEDING THE GIFTS IN-KIND IDENTIFIED IN APPLICATION 520. DO I HAVE A SECOND? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: SECOND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DAVID IS THE SECOND. I'D LIKE TO HAVE A VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. THE MOTION PASSES. AND -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WE SHOULD SCORE WITH THIS BEING CONSIDERED DEALT WITH? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: CORRECT. THAT THOSE FUNDS WILL BE IDENTIFIED AS ANOTHER APPROPRIATE SOURCE OF MATCHING FUNDS, NOT A GIFT IN-KIND. IF EVERYONE CAN PLEASE MARK DOWN THEIR PRELIMINARY SCORES ON APPLICATION 520. | ||||||||
| SO THE NEXT APPLICATION NUMBER WILL BE 521. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THAT'S CORRECT, MR. CHAIRMAN. THE RECUSALS ARE TAKEN CARE OF, I BELIEVE, LANSING AND HOFFMAN. | ||||||||
| (MEMBER LANSING AND STAFF MEMBER HOFFMAN ARE RECUSED FROM APPLICATION 521 AND ARE NOT PRESENT IN THE ROOM.) | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THE PROPOSAL IS FOR CIRM FUNDING OF $1 MILLION FOR CONSTRUCTION, 469,692 FOR EQUIPMENT. THAT IS FOR A SHARED RESEARCH LABORATORY. THERE'S NOT FUNDING REQUESTED FOR A STEM CELL COURSE. THE REVIEWERS ARE MEMBER KASHIAN AND MEMBER SHEEHY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ANY TECHNICAL ISSUES RAISED? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THERE ARE NO ISSUES ON THIS OF A FINANCIAL TECHNICAL NATURE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WELL, THANK YOU. WELL, ED, CAN YOU PLEASE CONDUCT THE PRIMARY REVIEW. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I'D BE HAPPY TO. RATHER THAN TO ELABORATE ON EVERY GIVEN ISSUE, I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THIS APPLICATION IS WELL BELOW AVERAGE, AND I SCORED IT IN ALMOST EVERY CATEGORY IN THAT AREA. I ESPECIALLY AM CONCERNED ABOUT TIMELINE AND HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE, BUT MY OVERALL AVERAGE WAS WELL BELOW AVERAGE. MY OVERALL SCORE WAS WELL BELOW AVERAGE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT I MADE A MISTAKE. BEFORE YOU DISCUSS THIS AND FORMULATE THE SCORES IN YOUR MIND, I JUST WANTED TO CORRECT THE FACT THAT WE DID HAVE IN THE NARRATIVE, BUT NOT IN THE SUMMARY, THE NOTION OF CONCERN ABOUT HOW THEY HANDLED THE ISSUE OF COST OVERRUNS ON THIS PROPOSAL. WHY DON'T YOU GO RIGHT AHEAD. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ED, CAN YOU HOLD OFF ONE SECOND? RICK, ARE YOU STATING THAT THIS WOULD -- SO IT WAS UNCLEAR WHETHER THEY WOULD COVER THE COST OVERRUNS AND NOT REDUCE THE SCOPE? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THAT'S RIGHT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION THAT WE HAVE -- | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THE USUAL, CUSTOMARY PROCEDURE THAT YOU USED ON THE FACT THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WOULD THEN COMMUNICATE TO THEM THAT THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT. SO I APOLOGIZE FOR INTERRUPTING, BUT I WANTED YOU TO KNOW THAT BEFORE YOU -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU. I SEE IT ON THE LIST. THANK YOU. SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION THAT CIRM SHOULD INFORM THE APPLICANT THAT ANY COST ISSUES SHALL NOT RESULT IN A REDUCED SCOPE, AND THE INSTITUTION WILL GUARANTEE TO COVER ANY COST OVERRUNS. DO I HAVE A SECOND? | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: SECOND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WE'VE GOT A SECOND. I'D LIKE TO HAVE A VOICE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. SO, ED, SORRY ABOUT THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I THINK I'VE STATED ALL I WANTED TO STATE. I DON'T WANT TO BE TOO NEGATIVE PUBLICLY ON AN OUTSTANDING INSTITUTION. THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION DOESN'T SUIT ME. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. CAN YOU GIVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE GRANULARITY ON SOME OF THE -- HOW ABOUT THE FEASIBILITY? WAS IT FEASIBLE? | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I DON'T THINK SO. I RATED IT VERY LOW. EVERY ONE OF THOSE SCORES -- I CAN GO THROUGH IT AGAIN IF YOU WANT ONE AT A TIME. FEASIBILITY IS A VERY LOW SCORE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO IT WAS BELOW AVERAGE THEN? | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: WAY BELOW AVERAGE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WOULD YOU SAY THAT'S POOR OR BELOW AVERAGE? | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: NO. WAY BELOW AVERAGE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ALL RIGHT. SAME WITH COST? | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: THE COST IS THE SAME WAY. IT'S EXTREMELY HIGH AND WELL BELOW AVERAGE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. SAME WITH TIMELINE? | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: TIMELINES IS 30 MONTHS OUT AFTER, AND THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF PLANS OR THINGS THAT DEAL WITH THE ISSUES. SO I HAVE THAT VERY BELOW AVERAGE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. I THINK YOU'RE PRETTY CLEAR ON THIS ONE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: MR. KASHIAN, JUST AS A POINT OF ORDER. YOUR COMMENTS ARE VERY HELPFUL BECAUSE, AS WE DISCUSSED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING, THERE WILL BE THIS SUMMARIZED REPORT IN WHICH THE COMMENTS OF THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY REVIEWER, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCUSSION NOW, ARE INCORPORATED. AND THAT'S WHY AN ADDITIONAL COLOR IS HELPFUL. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: JEFF, IF YOU COULD DO THE SECONDARY REVIEW. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: SURE. AND I'M -- YOU KNOW, I HAD INITIALLY SCORED IT HIGHER, BUT I THINK I'M BRINGING IT DOWN IN LIGHT OF THE PRIMARY REVIEWER'S COMMENTS AND WOULD PROBABLY SCORE THIS CLOSER TO 50 THAN WHERE I ORIGINALLY HAD IT BASED ON THOSE COMMENTS. | ||||||||
| I DID HAVE A MAJOR ISSUE ON THE COST. IT WAS ONE OF THE HIGHEST. AND SOME OF THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE HIGH COST SEEMED TO BE THE LOCATION. THERE SEEMED TO BE ALMOST A CONFLUENCE OF FACTORS WITH THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION THAT MADE IT POTENTIALLY RELATIVELY HIGH COST, BUT AT THE SAME TIME NOT THE KIND OF INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE TO DEVELOP THESE KINDS OF FACILITIES, BUT IT WAS VERY HIGH COST. | ||||||||
| IN TERMS OF FEASIBILITY, I DEFER TO THE PRIMARY REVIEWER ON THAT AND WOULD DROP THE SCORE DOWN THAT I HAD DRAMATICALLY. | ||||||||
| THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT IS JUST BARELY 20 PERCENT. SO IT'S NOT A HIGH INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT. | ||||||||
| HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE, I AGAIN DEFER TO THE PRIMARY REVIEWER, AS WELL AS ON THE RESPONSIVENESS. | ||||||||
| SO I THINK THIS WOULD FALL TO THE BOTTOM OF THE LIST. I THINK THIS IS THE LAST ONE FOR ME, BUT IT WOULD DEFINITELY BE THE LOWEST SCORED ONE ON MY LIST. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. THANK YOU, JEFF. BOB. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: QUESTION. I JUST MISSED -- I APOLOGIZE. I MISSED THE -- WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THE FEASIBILITY ISSUE? I WASN'T IN THE ROOM. I'M SORRY. IF YOU COULD JUST REPEAT THAT FOR ME. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I DIDN'T GO INTO A LOT OF DETAIL ON THAT ISSUE. I SIMPLY SAID THAT IN MY OPINION THIS DIDN'T MEET MY STANDARDS IN TERMS OF FEASIBILITY, ALTHOUGH IT COULD BE DONE. THE AMOUNT OF FIX IT WOULD TAKE AND THE LONG AMOUNT OF TIME IT WOULD TAKE DOESN'T MEET MY PARTICULAR CRITERIA ON HOW TO DEAL WITH THIS MONEY NOW. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AND DID I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, BECAUSE I DIDN'T REVIEW THIS ONE IN-DEPTH, IT WAS A 30-MONTH CONSTRUCTION PERIOD, SO IT GOES -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I DON'T THINK -- I THINK THE TOTAL PROJECT SCHEDULE IS QUITE LONG. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THIRTY MONTHS FOR DELIVERY, SO IT GOES BEYOND THE TWO YEARS WHICH IS THE PREFERENCE BUILT INTO THE INITIATIVE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IT SAYS MARCH 2009, 19 MONTHS. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: THE OVERALL PROJECT WAS 30 MONTHS FROM THE GRANT IF THEY HAD ENOUGH TIME TO DEAL WITH CORRECTING THEIR PLANS AND GOING THROUGH THE PRIMARY PLAN ISSUES. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: JUST TO UNDERSTAND, I'M TRYING TO RECONCILE THE INFORMATION. THERE'S INFORMATION THAT SAYS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE DONE IN MARCH OF '09; IS THAT CORRECT? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WHICH MARCH OF '09 IS HOW MANY MONTHS OUT FROM US, ASSUMED JULY AWARD DATE? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: TWENTY-ONE MONTHS. MR. KELLER: WELL, IT WOULD BE 19 MONTHS. FROM AUGUST '07 TO AUGUST '08 WOULD BE 12 MONTHS AND AUGUST TO MARCH. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SOME OF THE MONTHS HAVE ALREADY ELAPSED, SO THEY'VE BEEN DOING SOME OF THE WORK ALREADY IS WHAT EVIDENTLY IS THE CASE. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: BUT THE DEMONSTRATION OF WHAT THEY'VE DONE WASN'T ADEQUATE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I SEE. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: I DO KNOW ANOTHER PRETTY LARGE MEDICAL FACILITY IN THIS AREA, WITHOUT REVEALING WHERE IT IS, AND THEIR RECENT COST PER SQUARE FOOT FOR THEIR FACILITIES WAS OVER $800. THAT MAY BE PARTICULAR TO THAT GEOGRAPHY RIGHT NOW. I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT UP. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE IN THE SAN DIEGO AREA CONSTRUCTIONWISE. AND IN MY OPINION, FROM WHAT THEY'RE DOING, IS THEY DON'T HAVE A SETS OF PLANS AND THEY DON'T HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE, SO THEY'RE ESTIMATING VERY HIGH IN ORDER TO COVER THEIR COST OVERRUNS, WHICH IS FINE IF YOU ARE SPECULATING ON YOUR OWN MONEY. BUT OUR JOB IS TO GET IT OUT AND DONE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: I'M JUST COMPARING IT TO ANOTHER FACILITY, A DIFFERENT COMPANY ENTIRELY AND WHAT THEY'RE PROJECTED COSTS ARE IN THAT IMMEDIATE AREA. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: MARCY, A COUPLE OF THE APPLICATIONS THAT I REVIEWED WERE IN THAT AREA AS WELL, AND THEY HAD SOME OF THE HIGHEST SCORING ON THE COST ISSUES IN THE TWO HUNDREDS PER SQUARE FOOT. OKAY. | ||||||||
| SO IF THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS OR QUESTIONS. RICK, IS THERE ANY CLARIFICATION YOU MIGHT LIKE TO MAKE ON THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I DON'T THINK SO. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT, MR. CHAIRMAN, ABOUT THE OVERALL ISSUE AND OUR JOB AS I UNDERSTAND IT. I THINK IT IS PATENTLY UNFAIR FOR THOSE PEOPLE THAT HAVE SPENT THE TIME AND EFFORT TO FILL OUT THESE APPLICATIONS CORRECTLY AND NOT LEAVE ANY BLANK TO BE GIVEN SECOND CHANCES AND BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITIES -- GIVEN A SECOND CHANCE TO MAKE UP A DEFICIT, THAT'S FINE, BUT SUGGESTING HOW TO DO IT OR EXTENDING OPTIONS IS NOT, I DON'T BELIEVE, OUR JOB. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ED, YOU KNOW, WE HAD MOTIONS ON SPECIFIC TECHNICAL ISSUES THAT EVERYONE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE THEIR CONCERNS AND MAKE COMMENTS, AND WE VOTED ON THEM. CERTAINLY YOUR COMMENTS ARE DULY NOTED. I APPRECIATE YOUR THOUGHT YOU PUT INTO THOSE ISSUES, BUT I THINK WE'VE GOT TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: JUST AS AN ADD-ON, JUST BECAUSE THE MOTION PASSED AND WE SUGGESTED A REMEDY DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE TO ASSIGN IT THE HIGHEST SCORE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ABSOLUTELY NOT. YOU SHOULD -- THE MOTION STATES THAT YOU SHOULD ASSUME THAT THE ISSUE IS FIXED. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: YOU CAN STILL GIVE IT A ZERO. YOU COULD. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THE SCORING IS PARTICULAR TO YOUR OWN VIEW OF THE APPLICANT. OKAY. NEXT APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: 00523-1. AND THAT HAS RECUSALS OF SHEEHY, FEIT, SAMBRANO, AND HOFFMAN. | ||||||||
| (MEMBERS SHEEHY AND FEIT AND STAFF MEMBERS SAMBRANO AND HOFFMAN ARE RECUSED FROM APPLICATION 523 AND ARE NOT PRESENT IN THE ROOM.) | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THE PROPOSAL IS FOR A SHARED LABORATORY OF WHICH 1,999,692 WAS REQUESTED IN CIRM FUNDS. THERE'S ALSO A TECHNIQUES SPACE IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TECHNIQUES COURSE OF 499,956. | ||||||||
| THE PROPOSAL, AS WE VIEWED IT, INCLUDES A TECHNICAL FINANCIAL ISSUE ASSOCIATED WITH THE DESIGN AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT. THAT COMES IN TWO RESPECTS. AS PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION AMOUNT, A BUDGET OF 46,400 WAS IDENTIFIED FOR SPECIAL INSPECTIONS. AND IN THE USUAL AND CUSTOMARY BUDGETING OF PROJECTS, SPECIAL INSPECTIONS ARE PART OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CATEGORY. SO THAT AMOUNT, WE BELIEVE, IS PART OF THAT ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET. | ||||||||
| AND THEN WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE REMAINING AMOUNT OR THE AMOUNT THAT HAD ACTUALLY BEEN BUDGETED FOR THE DESIGN AND ADMINISTRATIVE AND CONTINGENCY AMOUNT, THAT WAS $174,600 ABOVE THE GUIDELINE. SO BETWEEN THE TWO, THIS WOULD HAVE AN EXCESS OR UNALLOWED COST OF $221,000 ASSOCIATED WITH THE DESIGN AND ADMINISTRATIVE AND CONTINGENCY AMOUNT. | ||||||||
| OUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT YOU WOULD APPLY THE CIRM REMEDY, THAT WE WOULD REDUCE THE GRANT AMOUNT, AND THE INSTITUTION IS TO PROVIDE THE FUNDS FOR THESE UNALLOWABLE EXPENSES. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: SO MOVED. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO, JANET, YOU'RE MAKING THAT MOTION. I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. I'D LIKE TO HAVE A VOICE VOTE ON THIS MOTION SUPPORTING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? UNANIMOUSLY PASSED. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: ONE OTHER ISSUE THAT WE RAISED IN THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP ISSUES IS THAT YOU NEED TO DECIDE HOW YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF COST PER SQUARE FOOT EXCEEDING THE AMOUNT THAT WOULD BE EXPECTED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. AND, OF COURSE, THAT'S NOT A FINANCIAL TECHNICAL ISSUE THAT WE CAN HELP YOU WITH, BUT IS A POLICY ISSUE THAT YOU NEED TO DISCUSS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. THANK YOU, RICK. SO I WAS THE PRIMARY REVIEWER, SO I GUESS I'LL GO FIRST ON THIS ONE. | ||||||||
| IN TERMS OF FEASIBILITY -- RICK, DID YOU GIVE A DESCRIPTION OF THE WORK? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: DESCRIPTION OF THE WORK? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'LL GIVE A BRIEF DESCRIPTION. SO THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD RENOVATE 1200 ASSIGNABLE SQUARE FEET IN AN EXISTING RESEARCH BUILDING TO EXPAND AN EXISTING STEM CELL LABORATORY AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR SHARED TEACHING AND INTERACTIVE SPACE IN SUPPORT OF A STEM CELL TECHNIQUES COURSE, AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL DERIVATION, STEM CELL GROWTH, AND PROPAGATION SPACE. | ||||||||
| THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS, I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT IN A MINUTE. IN TERMS OF FEASIBILITY, THE PROJECT SEEMED FEASIBLE, BUT VERY COMPLICATED AND VERY DIFFICULT. I DON'T DOUBT THAT THE PROJECT CAN GET DONE. IT'S JUST THAT THE BUILDING IS IN AN OLDER BUILDING THAT'S NOT PARTICULARLY WELL-SUITED FOR THIS TYPE OF LAB SPACE. AND THERE'S A LOT OF REMEDIAL WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO THE BUILDING TO BRING IT UP TO KIND OF CURRENT CODE AND CURRENT USES. SO BECAUSE OF THAT -- AND ALSO, THERE WAS -- THERE WERE -- THE COSTS SEEMED TO BE VERY, VERY HIGH COMPARED TO OTHER REVIEWED GRANT APPLICATIONS. | ||||||||
| AS MENTIONED ALREADY, WE TALKED ABOUT THE PROJECT CONTINGENCY AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, DESIGN FEE ISSUE, AND WE'RE ASSUMING THAT THAT WILL BE CORRECTED. AGAIN, THE COSTS SEEMED VERY HIGH ON A PER-SQUARE-FOOT BASIS AND I BELIEVE WAS THE HIGHEST ON A, YES, $1585 PER ASSIGNABLE SQUARE FOOT. SO THAT WAS DEFINITELY MY LOWEST SCORE ON A COST PER-SQUARE-FOOT BASIS, EVEN TAKING INTO ACCOUNT SOME OF THE MITIGATING FACTORS HERE. | ||||||||
| THE NEXT ISSUE, THE OVERALL SCHEDULE SEEMED TO BE WELL BELOW AVERAGE. AGAIN, IT'S A COMPLICATED PROJECT, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT AFFECTS SCHEDULE, BUT, AGAIN, IT WAS A VERY LONG SCHEDULE. I BELIEVE IT WAS 13 MONTHS. | ||||||||
| THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT TO ME SEEMED UNCLEAR AND BELOW AVERAGE. AND I DON'T KNOW IF I MISREAD THIS, BUT IT SEEMED THAT THERE WAS NO CURRENT FUNDING PROPOSED AND IT WAS ALL PRIOR EXPENDITURES; IS THAT CORRECT, RICK? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: FOR THE MATCHING FUNDS? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YEAH. IS THAT CORRECT? SO IT SEEMED -- SO THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, AGAIN, IT SEEMED UNCLEAR TO ME AND BELOW AVERAGE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: HOW IS IT BELOW AVERAGE, DAVID? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BECAUSE THERE WERE NO CURRENT FUNDS PROPOSED. IT WAS ALL PRIOR EXPENDITURES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT'S OKAY AS LONG AS IT WAS EXPENDED AFTER 2005. I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT IT'S -- AND I'M THE SECONDARY REVIEWER, SO WE'LL TAG TEAM IT. BUT WHATEVER YOUR SCORE IS FINE. I'M JUST SAYING FOR INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, THE RFA GUIDELINES ARE WE CAN COUNT FUNDS EXPENDED AFTER JANUARY OF 2005 IF IT FITS WITHIN A COUPLE OF NEAT CATEGORIES, PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT OR RENOVATION OF SPACE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YOU KNOW, I STAND CORRECTED BY THE VICE CHAIR. I SEE NOW THE MATCHING PERCENTAGE. I STAND CORRECTED. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I THINK THE AMBIGUITY IS THEY COULD HAVE BEEN A BIT MORE SPECIFIC IN HOW THOSE DOLLARS HAVE BEEN SPENT. THEY MADE A GENERAL STATEMENT, WE SPENT, I THINK, A MILLION DOLLARS OR SO -- RICK, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG -- ON STEM CELL RESEARCH THUS FAR. BUT IT WAS SORT OF LIKE THE OTHER $20 MILLION ONE. THEY DIDN'T REALLY GIVE THE KIND OF SPECIFICITY THAT OTHER APPLICANTS DID. IT WAS CONFUSING. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IT WAS A BIT CONFUSING, BUT ACTUALLY THEIR PERCENTAGE IS QUITE GOOD AT 54 PERCENT. SO I WANT TO TAKE BACK MY COMMENT ON THIS. THE VICE CHAIR HAS CORRECTED ME ON THIS, AND I STAND CORRECTED ON IT. I WOULD SAY IF WE'RE COUNTING THE PREVIOUS FUNDS, IT COULD HAVE BEEN CLEARER, BUT IT SEEMS THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT IS GOOD. | ||||||||
| THE HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE ACTUALLY SEEMED QUITE GOOD. I WAS VERY PLEASED WITH THAT. I HAD NO CONCERNS AT ALL ABOUT THE HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE. AND THE PROPOSAL SEEMED GENERALLY QUITE RESPONSIVE. | ||||||||
| SO TECHNIQUES COURSE, AGAIN, I VIEWED IT IN THE SAME WAY. NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE. OVERALL, YOU KNOW, COMPLICATED PROJECT THAT WAS COSTLY. AGAIN, SOME MITIGATING FACTORS THAT AFFECT SCHEDULE AND COST, BUT, AGAIN, QUITE A HIGH COST RELATIVE FOR WHAT WOULD BE GAINED BY FUNDING THIS PROJECT. SO VICE CHAIR. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: WELL, LET ME JUST -- YOU'VE IDENTIFIED SOME OF THE SAME ISSUES I HAVE WITH IT, BUT I SORT OF LOOKED AT IT JUST A BIT DIFFERENTLY. SO LET ME ASK YOU IN TERMS OF FEASIBILITY, OR YOU CAN ASK ME QUESTIONS, ARE YOU SAYING -- THIS IS WHAT I THINK I UNDERSTAND YOU TO SAY, THAT THE COST PER SQUARE FOOT IS VERY HIGH. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ON FEASIBILITY, IT'S REALLY HOW ACHIEVABLE THE PROJECT IS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I WOULD SAY THE PROJECT IS FEASIBLE. MY ANALYSIS IS, WHILE THERE ARE CERTAIN INHERENT CHALLENGES TO THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING SITE, THE PROJECT IS FEASIBLE AS DEFINED IN THE CRITERIA. IT ISN'T INFEASIBLE. IN MY MIND THERE WERE NO MAJOR OBSTACLES THAT WOULD GET IN THE WAY OF THIS PROJECT BEING COMPLETED AS A FEASIBILITY ISSUE. FEASIBILITY, AT LEAST IN TERMS OF THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION, IS SO TIED TO COST IN MY MIND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. AGAIN, I THINK THE PROJECT IS FEASIBLE; BUT, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IT'S A COMPLICATED, DIFFICULT PROJECT. AND WHEN YOU HAVE AN OLDER BUILDING WITH THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THESE PROJECTS TEND TO TAKE A LOT LONGER THAN PEOPLE THINK THEY WILL AND COST A LOT MORE. I'M NOT SURE IT COULD COST MUCH MORE ON THIS ONE, BUT SO THE FEASIBILITY TO ME SEEMED TO BE BELOW AVERAGE BECAUSE OF THE MITIGATING FACTORS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I'M ALMOST DONE WITH MY ANALYSIS, BOB. I GAVE IT A 12 IN FEASIBILITY, BUT I HAD THE SAME QUESTIONS THAT YOU DO. I JUST LOOKED AT IT A BIT DIFFERENTLY. | ||||||||
| I DO HAVE QUESTIONS, THOUGH, IN TERMS OF COST. I HAD THE VERY SAME ISSUES. THIS, AS RICK RIGHTLY POINTED OUT, THIS IS A BROADER POLICY QUESTION. IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN FIX BY A MOTION, AND EACH ONE OF US ARE GOING TO DECIDE WHEN WE'RE ASSIGNING OUR OWN SCORES HOW WE WANT TO DEAL WITH IT. BUT THE COST IS VERY HIGH. BUT I WAS PLEASED THAT THE APPLICANT WENT INTO SUFFICIENT DETAIL AS TO WHAT THOSE FACTORS WERE. IT'S AN OLDER BUILDING. IT'S A VERY DENSE PART OF AN AREA, WHICH POSES REALLY BIG CHALLENGES TO DOING THIS KIND OF RENOVATION PROJECT. THOSE ARE JUST THE FACTS. I THINK EACH INSTITUTION HAS TO DEAL WITH THEIR OWN SET OF ISSUES. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT $1500 PER SQUARE FOOT IS THE RIGHT NUMBER. IT'S CERTAINLY OVER. IT IS A FACTOR WHEN I DID MY COST. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. I'M NOT SAYING NECESSARILY THAT THAT NUMBER ISN'T INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE SCOPE, BUT I AM SAYING RELATIVE TO THE OTHER APPLICANTS. IF WE JUST COMPARE THE COSTS ON A PER-SQUARE-FOOT BASIS AND WHAT WE GAIN, IT SEEMS VERY HIGH. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I'M NOT DONE WITH MY ANALYSIS. THIS IS AN INSTITUTION THAT HAS MADE SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE FIELD OF STEM CELLS. THEY HAVE A PHENOMENAL AND HIGHLY CREDENTIALED GROUP OF PROFESSIONALS WHO ARE DOING SOME REALLY MIRACULOUS WORK, AND SO THAT WAS A MITIGATING FACTOR FOR ME AS WELL IN TERMS OF COST. NOW, I STILL GAVE IT A LOW NUMBER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK THAT WOULD BE A PROGRAMMATIC ISSUE VERSUS A TECHNICAL ISSUE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: FINE. I TOTALLY MESSED UP, BUT I GAVE IT -- I'LL TELL YOU WHAT I DID. I GAVE IT A FEASIBILITY OF 11, A COST OF 14, BECAUSE OF THE ISSUES THAT I'VE IDENTIFIED; TIMELINES AND MILESTONES, I AGREE WITH YOU, BUT I GAVE IT A HIGHER SCORE. I GAVE IT A 17. INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, I GAVE IT, NOTWITHSTANDING WHERE THE ONE MILLION IS GOING TO BE SPENT, BUT I ASSUME THAT IT WILL BE VERIFIED BECAUSE IT WILL HAVE TO, I GAVE IT A 20. HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE, THEY HAVE A LOT OF HISTORY IN DOING THESE KINDS OF PROJECTS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I AGREED WITH YOU. I SAID GOOD TO VERY GOOD, SO I THINK WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE ON THAT ONE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: OKAY. I HAVE THE LUXURY -- YOU HAVE THE LUXURY OF LOOKING AT MY SCORES, AND I HAVE THE LUXURY OF LOOKING AT YOURS. ANYWAYS, HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE, I GAVE IT A 9; RESPONSIVENESS A 12; AND I THINK THAT TOTALED AROUND 80, BUT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE HIGH COST AS WELL. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR. BOB, YOU HAD SOME COMMENTS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: FIRST OF ALL, I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT IN LOOKING AT FEASIBILITY AND THE COMPLEXITY OF THE PROJECT, THEIR PRIOR PROJECTS HAVE SIMILAR RANGES OF COMPLEXITY. THEIR PRIOR PROJECTS HAVE SIMILAR RANGES OF COMPLEXITY. SO HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE IS VERY IMPORTANT HERE IN LOOKING AT FEASIBILITY. | ||||||||
| AND IT SAYS ACTUAL COST FOR THE THREE PROJECTS CITED FOR HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE WERE PRECISELY THE SAME AS THE BUDGETED AMOUNT IN ALL THREE CASES, AND PROJECT COMPLETION RANGED FROM EXACTLY ON TIME TO THREE WEEKS AFTER SCHEDULED COMPLETION. NOW, WITH COMPLEX PROJECTS, THAT REALLY SHOWS THEY HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE AND THE EXPERTISE TO HANDLE THESE COMPLICATED SITUATIONS. SO I WOULD HAVE JUDGED THEIR FEASIBILITY HIGH BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT A PROVEN TRACK RECORD IN MEETING THESE WHAT -- I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH DAVE LICHTENGER -- IS A VERY COMPLICATED CHALLENGE HERE. BUT IF YOU'VE GOT THE PERFORMANCE RECORD THAT SHOWS YOU CAN HANDLE IT, I THINK YOU'VE GOT -- I PERSONALLY WOULD SCORE THEM HIGHER ON FEASIBILITY WITH THAT PERFORMANCE RECORD. | ||||||||
| AS TO THE POINT ON COST THAT DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL WAS RAISING, IT WAS IMPORTANT TO ME THAT THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT IS HIGH BECAUSE IN MEETING OUR MISSION, IF THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT IS HIGH, THAT REALLY MITIGATES THE COST. THEY HAVE A HISTORICAL PROBLEM. THEY HAVE -- EVERYBODY AGREES THEY HAVE JUSTIFIED THE COST BECAUSE IT'S EXTREMELY DIFFICULT, BUT THEY'RE MUCH HIGHER IN THEIR INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENTS THAN MANY OF THE OTHER APPLICATIONS. SO IN TERMS OF VALUE, WHICH IS THE WAY I REALLY LOOK AT COST FOR OUR MISSION, THAT INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT BEING SO HIGH BRINGS DOWN THE EFFECTIVE COST FOR US AND INCREASES THE VALUE WE RECEIVE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: AGREED, BOB. ABSOLUTELY. OBVIOUSLY THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT HERE IS HIGH FROM THE INSTITUTION. JANET, YOU HAD SOME COMMENTS? | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, SPEAKING OF VALUE, THAT'S 28 PI'S AT THE HOST INSTITUTION FOR AN AMOUNT OF CIRM FUNDING THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IN THE MEDIAN. IT'S ATTRACTIVE TO ME. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE PUT DOWN OUR PRELIMINARY SCORE? BOB, THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A TEN-MINUTE BREAK, RECESS. SO APPROXIMATELY TEN OF FOUR IF WE COULD RECONVENE. | ||||||||
| (A RECESS WAS TAKEN.) | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. IF THE MEMBERS COULD TAKE THEIR SEATS. GRAB A LAST-MINUTE COOKIE AND COFFEE, BUT LET'S START THE MEETING. | ||||||||
| RICK, THE NEXT APPLICATION WOULD BE 524; IS THAT CORRECT? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: 524 IS CORRECT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I SEE THAT WE DO HAVE SOME OF THESE FINANCIAL TECHNICAL ISSUES. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES, WE DO, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND THE RECUSALS ARE LANSING AND FEIT. I DON'T SEE MEMBER FEIT IN THE ROOM. SO WE MAY PROCEED. | ||||||||
| (MEMBERS LANSING AND FEIT ARE RECUSED FROM APPLICATION 524 AND ARE NOT PRESENT IN THE ROOM.) | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THE PROPOSAL IS BOTH A SHARED LAB PROJECT OF 1,429,600, AND A SPACE -- ACTUALLY JUST EQUIPMENT FOR A TECHNIQUES COURSE OF 498,300. THE ONE TECHNICAL FINANCIAL ISSUE THAT WE IDENTIFIED ON THIS --ACTUALLY THERE ARE TWO. I APOLOGIZE. WE IDENTIFIED, AGAIN, DESIGN AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS EXCEED THE GUIDELINE IDENTIFIED IN THE RFA, AS WELL AS EQUIPMENT THAT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE CIRM DEFINITION OF EQUIPMENT AS IT WAS DECIDED IN THE POLICIES OF THE ICOC. | ||||||||
| WE'VE IDENTIFIED THE FACT THAT $43,375 IS ASSOCIATED WITH THESE UNALLOWABLE COSTS; AND, THEREFORE, WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU APPLY THE CUSTOMARY LANGUAGE THAT YOU'VE ADOPTED FOR THESE SORTS OF COST OVERRUNS CONSISTENT WITH PREVIOUS APPLICANTS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT CIRM SHOULD REDUCE ITS GRANT AMOUNT OR APPLICANT PROVIDES INSTITUTIONAL FUNDS FOR THESE UNALLOWABLE EXPENSES. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: SECOND. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THAT'S CORRECT, MR. CHAIRMAN. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WE HAVE A SECOND WITH DEBORAH. I'D LIKE TO HAVE A VOICE VOTE ON THIS ISSUE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SO THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. YOU SAID ANOTHER ONE REGARDING THE -- | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: MATCHING FUNDS. IN THIS CASE THE APPLICANT HAS IDENTIFIED -- AGAIN, GOING BACK TO THE FACT THAT THIS IS ASSOCIATED WITH PRIOR EQUIPMENT PURCHASES AS BEING IDENTIFIED AS THE SOURCE OF MATCHING FUNDS. IN THIS CASE THE PRIOR MATCHING FUNDS CONSISTS OF A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF FUNDS SPENT ON EQUIPMENT. WELL, THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT CONSISTS OF THE EQUIPMENT THAT HAS BEEN PURCHASED WOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE ONE DAY PER WEEK FOR THE USERS OF THE SHARED RESEARCH LABORATORY. AND THE PRO RATA VALUE OF THAT 20-PERCENT USAGE WOULD BE $469,220. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO -- | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I'M SORRY. THAT'S THE MINIMUM. THEY'RE SAYING THE MATCHING FUNDS ARE 359, I THINK, WHICH ASSOCIATED WITH THE -- I'LL HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT. THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE IS THAT WE HAVE THIS SHARED, THIS PRO RATA CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH, AGAIN, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE SITUATION, THE PROVISIONS WITHIN THE RFA, WE HAVE CONCERNS THAT IT'S NOT A PROPER MATCHING AMOUNT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDING THAT CIRM SHOULD REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO IDENTIFY AN APPROPRIATE SOURCE OF MATCHING FUNDS; IS THAT CORRECT? EXCELLENT. I PROPOSE THAT AS A MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: POINT OF INFORMATION. IS THAT FOR THE 324,000 THAT WAS IN THE ONE-DAY-A-WEEK MATCH? THAT'S THE EQUIPMENT MATCH OF 324 ON YOUR CHART, RICK? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: UH-HUH. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: SECOND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: FINE. GREAT. ANY DISCUSSION? SO THEN WE'LL HAVE A VOICE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NONE OPPOSED. SO PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. EXCELLENT. OKAY. | ||||||||
| DEBORAH, IF YOU COULD PLEASE GIVE THE PRIMARY REVIEW. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: THIS PROJECT WAS MY NO. 1 PROJECT IN TERMS OF RATING. THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS WERE VERY SOLID. THEY WERE VERY DETAILED AND DEVELOPED A VERY CLEAR SCOPE OF WORK BY WHICH YOU COULD RENOVATE THIS 1500 SQUARE FOOT SPACE. IT'S USING MODULAR DESIGN THAT DELIVERS THE PIPING OF SHARED LAB SERVICES TO THE FACILITY IN QUESTION. I THINK THEY WERE ABLE TO LEVERAGE THAT EXISTING CONFIGURATION TO REDUCE THEIR CONSTRUCTION COSTS. I GAVE THEM A FEASIBILITY SCORE OF 15. | ||||||||
| COST ON A PER-SQUARE-FOOT BASIS I THINK WAS IN THE MID RANGE OF THE APPLICATIONS. SO I FELT IT WAS FAIRLY COMPETITIVE IN THAT REGARD. AND I FELT THAT THE LAYOUT WAS ABLE TO LEVERAGE THE EXISTING SYSTEM TO LEVERAGE ITS DOLLARS. SO I GAVE THEM AN ABOVE AVERAGE SCORE IN THIS ARENA. | ||||||||
| THE TIMELINE AND MILESTONES, I THOUGHT THEY WERE EXTREMELY DETAILED, PROVIDED AN ITEM-BY-ITEM COST BREAKDOWN, PROVIDED A PROJECT TRACKING SPREADSHEET. I LOVE TO SEE THOSE. I THINK IT WAS THE ONLY ONE IN MY BATCH. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT OTHERS, BUT I REALLY LIKE TO SEE SOMEONE PUT TOGETHER THAT KIND OF CHART BECAUSE IT REALLY MIGHT EVEN ILLUSTRATE FOR THE PREPARER SOME CRITICAL STEPS THAT MIGHT INTERFERE WITH THEIR CONSTRUCTION. JUST GOING FORWARD, I'D REALLY LOVE TO SEE THAT AS SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANTS PUT TOGETHER. | ||||||||
| THEY BELIEVE THE PROJECT CAN BE OPERATIONAL BY THE END FEBRUARY 2008. THEIR TOTAL ELAPSED CONSTRUCTION TIME WAS TWO MONTHS, WHICH I FELT WAS DOABLE GIVEN THIS MODULAR SYSTEM THAT IS ABLE TO BRING SOME OF ITS CRITICAL MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, ETC. SERVICES TO THE SPACE. SO I SCORED THEM ABOVE AVERAGE IN THIS CATEGORY. | ||||||||
| INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, I DID HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE CAVEAT ABOUT THE ONE-DAY USE. I THOUGHT THAT WAS ODD AND THAT IT LIMITED THE TOTAL COMMITMENT. SO I'M GLAD THAT WE ADDRESSED IT IN A UNIFORM WAY. SO I RATED THIS, YOU KNOW, IN THE ABOVE AVERAGE FOR INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT. AS I RECALL, THEY MET THE MATCH IN THE TECHNIQUES COURSE AT THE EXACT AMOUNT, BUT DID EXCEED IT IN THE TOTAL PROJECT COST, I THINK, AT 41 PERCENT. SO I THOUGHT THAT WAS GOOD. | ||||||||
| THE TEAM THAT THEY SUBMITTED, IT SEEMED PRETTY CLEAR THAT THEY HAD WORKED TOGETHER BEFORE. I THINK THAT'S CRITICAL. I THINK THAT REALLY BODES WELL FOR THE SUCCESS IF THIS IS A TEAM THAT'S COLLABORATED IN THE PAST. THEY DIDN'T GIVE VERY SPECIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT WHO WAS GOING TO BE DOING THIS WORK, BUT THEY DID DESCRIBE SOME OF THE OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS THAT THEY HAD USED TO PARTICIPATE. IT SEEMED LIKE THEY HAD BEEN FAMILIAR WITH THIS INSTITUTION IN THE PAST, SO THAT HELPS TOO TO HAVE YOUR OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS BE PART OF SOMETHING YOU'VE DONE IN THE PAST. SO I RATED THEM ON THE HIGH SIDE FOR THIS CATEGORY. | ||||||||
| RESPONSIVE, I FELT THAT THEY'RE VERY RESPONSIVE TO THIS RFA. SO I GAVE THEM A HIGH SCORE IN THIS AREA AS WELL. THE TECHNIQUES COURSE, I FELT THAT THIS IS REALLY WHERE THEY WERE ELEVATED PRETTY SUBSTANTIALLY. I FELT THAT THEY WERE EXTREMELY RESPONSIVE IN THEIR TECHNIQUES SCORE INFORMATION. IT WAS VERY DETAILED. IT'S SEEMED CLEAR THAT THIS WAS A FEASIBLE PROJECT AND THAT THEY WERE COMMITTED TO TRAINING SCIENTISTS GOING FORWARD. SO THIS ACTUALLY, IN MY MIND, ELEVATED THEIR SCORING. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DEBORAH, IS THAT IT? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: THAT'S IT. I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND THEM. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: EXCELLENT. I'M SORRY. I WAS DISTRACTED. ON THE RESPONSIVENESS, HOW DID YOU CATEGORIZE THEM? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: HIGH. ON THE HIGH SIDE. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: WE ARE IN CONCERT ONCE AGAIN, DEBORAH. WITHOUT REPEATING IT, I GUESS I WOULD JUST EMPHASIZE THE TIMELINE MILESTONES CHARTING THAT THEY DID, EVEN I COULD UNDERSTAND HOW THIS THING WAS GOING TO GET BUILT. AND I HAD TOLD ARLENE THAT SLIDE THAT THE SCIENTISTS SHOWED OF ROCKET SCIENCE AND STEM CELL SCIENCE, THE ONLY THING TOUGHER FOR ME WERE SOME OF THESE BLUEPRINTS. I HAVE BLUEPRINT DYSLEXIA, SO I REALLY APPRECIATED THIS TIMELINE MILESTONE THING. | ||||||||
| IT WAS VERY CLEAR THEIR COMMITMENT TO PROVIDING RESOURCES TO THE RESEARCHERS IN THE AREA, IN THE REGION. AND THE TECHNIQUES COURSE, I WOULD AGREE, THEY GOT EXTRA CREDIT FROM ME BECAUSE IT WAS CLEAR THAT THEY WERE COMMITTED TO THEIR RESEARCH AND TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES AND DEVELOPING THE LOCAL SCIENTISTS. SO I SCORED IT VERY HIGH. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. COMMENTS? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: ON THIS PROJECT TRACKING CHART, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S -- IT SEEMS LIKE A BEST PRACTICE MODEL. AND IF WE COULD MAYBE GET A COPY OF THAT SO THAT WE COULD ALL SEE THAT BECAUSE ON A GOING FORWARD BASIS, IT MIGHT BE A GOOD ITEM TO REQUEST. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU, BOB. I THINK THAT'S A GREAT SUGGESTION, THAT WE CAN HAVE STAFF FOR OUR NEXT -- AS PART OF THE NEXT ROUND OF GRANT APPLICATIONS, WE'LL OBVIOUSLY WANT TO EXPLORE THESE TYPES OF ISSUES IN DETAIL. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: I CAN TELL YOU IT WILL ABSOLUTELY FACILITATE YOUR SITE VISITS AS YOU START TO LOOK AT COMPLIANCE ISSUES BECAUSE YOU WILL BE ABLE TO LOOK AT WHAT WAS INDICATED TO HAVE BEEN OCCURRING BY THAT POINT IN THE CONSTRUCTION, AND YOU WILL BE ABLE TO VISUALLY SEE IF IT, IN FACT, DID OCCUR. SO IT'S REALLY HELPFUL FOR THAT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR THE TWO REVIEWERS. ON THE HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE, I NOTICED THAT PROJECTS THAT THEY HAD DONE WERE FAIRLY SMALL. I JUST WANTED TO ASK HOW THE REVIEWERS VIEWED THAT WITHIN THE OVERALL CONTEXT OF THE APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: I FELT THAT THEY WERE COMPARABLE THOUGH TO WHAT WAS BEING PROPOSED HERE. I NOTICE THAT IN SOME CASES, IF IT WAS A REALLY LARGE PROJECT THEY WERE PROPOSING IN THE GRANT AND IT WAS A SMALL PROJECT THEY HAD DONE PREVIOUSLY, I RATED THEM LOWER; BUT IF IT WAS A COMPARABLE PROJECT TO THE PROJECT BEING REQUESTED, IT SEEMED TO BE AN APPROPRIATE COMPARISON. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: NOTHING ADDITIONAL TO ADD | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, THEN I'LL ASK EVERYONE TO PUT THEIR PRELIMINARY SCORE FOR THIS GRANT APPLICATION 24. TAKE A MOMENT TO DO THAT. AND NEXT APPLICATION WOULD BE 12. | ||||||||
| RICK, I THINK 12, THERE ARE NO TECHNICAL FINANCIAL ISSUES; IS THAT CORRECT? | ||||||||
| (MEMBERS LANSING, SHEEHY, AND FEIT ARE RECUSED FROM APPLICATION 512 AND ARE NOT PRESENT IN THE ROOM.) | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THAT'S CORRECT. I THINK WE'VE COVERED THE ONE ISSUE THAT WE RAISED IN THE NARRATIVE THAT DEALS WITH THE FACT THAT THIS PROJECT IS ACTUALLY UNDER WAY PRIOR TO THE GRANT ACCEPTANCE PERIOD OF TIME. SO I THINK OUR PREVIOUS DISCUSSION AND ADOPTION OF THE FACILITIES GRANT POLICIES WILL ADDRESS THAT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU. DEBORAH, NO REST FOR THE WEARY. IF YOU COULD PROCEED WITH YOUR PRELIMINARY REVIEW. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: OKAY. THIS IS ONE OF THE LEASED FACILITIES OF THE APPLICATIONS I RECEIVED. IT'S ROUGHLY 1500 ASSIGNABLE SQUARE FEET. IT DOES HAVE A FAIRLY LONG LEASE TERM. I WANT TO SAY TEN YEARS. THEY'RE AT THE START OF THE LEASE TERM. RICK'S CORRECT IN THAT THEY STARTED A RENOVATION, IT APPEARS TO BE, IN MARCH USING A COMBINATION OF IN-HOUSE AND OUTSIDE EXPERTISE. IT DOES APPEAR THAT THEIR PLANS ARE FAIRLY SCHEMATIC AT THIS POINT. NOT A LOT OF DETAIL NARRATIVE OF THE PROJECT SCOPE AND THE KINDS OF MAJOR SYSTEMS WORK THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO RENOVATE THIS INTO A LAB FACILITY. SO IT DOES APPEAR THERE IS SOME WORK TO BE DONE. IT DOES APPEAR IT'S A NEW LEASE FOR THIS ENTITY, BUT I BELIEVE THEY'VE LEASED OTHER SPACE IN THIS BUILDING; IS THAT CORRECT, RICK? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES. THIS IS BASICALLY AN EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING LEASE. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: NORMALLY I WOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE LANDLORD'S DELAYS IN IMPROVEMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. GIVEN THAT THEY SEEM TO HAVE SOME FAMILIARITY WITH THIS LANDLORD, I WOULD ASSUME THAT THEY'RE AWARE OF WHAT REQUIREMENTS THE LANDLORD WOULD HAVE FOR THEIR WORK TO BE DONE. | ||||||||
| SO FROM A FEASIBILITY STANDPOINT, I RATED THEM IN THE MID HIGH RANGE. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL TO SEE MORE DETAILED PLANS, SOME MORE DETAILED SCOPE. | ||||||||
| COST PER SQUARE FOOT FOR THIS APPLICANT IS IN THE MID RANGE. THEY DIDN'T INCLUDE A GROSS SQUARE FOOT NUMBER, SO IT'S BASICALLY THE ASSIGNABLE SQUARE FOOT NUMBER. THERE'S NO WAY TO SEE WHAT RATIO CALCULATION CAN BE MADE OF IT. BUT THE PER-SQUARE-FOOT COSTS FOR ASSIGNABLE SQUARE FEET IS IN THE MID RANGE. | ||||||||
| ONE THING THAT DID CONCERN ME HERE, AND I DID RAISE IT PREVIOUSLY AND WE DID PROVIDE A UNIFORM APPROACH TO THIS, BUT THE NOTION OF PREFERENCE FOR CALIFORNIA SUPPLIERS. THIS HAPPENS TO BE ONE THAT SUBMITTED A BID ESTIMATE FOR ITS EQUIPMENT. AND THE EQUIPMENT IS THE BULK OF THIS REQUEST. IT'S WELL IN EXCESS OF, I BELIEVE, 700,000. AND THE EQUIPMENT SUPPLIER IS NOT A CALIFORNIA BUSINESS. | ||||||||
| AND SO I JUST WANT IT TO BE CLEAR THAT WE REALLY DO NEED TO ESTABLISH SOME PROCESS BY WHICH THEY ALL AGREE TO PROCEED WITH SOME GOOD-FAITH EFFORT. I'M CONCERNED, GIVEN THAT IT IS UNDER WAY AND GIVEN THE LONG LEAD TIMES OF THESE ITEMS, THAT IT MAY BE TOO LATE. I DON'T KNOW THAT ALL OF THE CONTRACTORS AND OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS ARE ALSO, BECAUSE THEY APPARENTLY ARE UNDER CONTRACT IF THEY'RE CALIFORNIA SUPPLIERS OF SERVICES, SO THAT MIGHT BE A CONCERN AS WELL. I JUST RAISE THAT AS A CONCERN GIVEN IT IS UNDER WAY, AND THERE MAY NOT BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CANCEL EXISTING CONTRACTS AND EXISTING PURCHASE REQUESTS. SO I RATED THEM LOW FOR THAT CONCERN. AND IT MAY NOT BE A LEGITIMATE CONCERN, BUT I FELT THAT I NEEDED TO AT LEAST EXPRESS IT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DEBORAH, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT. I HAD A QUESTION FOR STAFF. ON THE MATCHING FUNDS ON THE SYNOPSIS PAGE, THE NUMBERS DON'T ADD UP. SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A TYPO, BUT THE MATCHING FUNDS ADD UP PROPERLY IN THE SPREADSHEET. SO I'M -- BOB AND I ARE A LITTLE FUZZY ABOUT WHAT THE MATCH ACTUALLY IS. SO IF YOU COULD LOOK AT THAT WHILE DEBORAH IS FINISHING. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: BECAUSE THEY HAVE STARTED THEIR CONSTRUCTION ALREADY, THEY'RE AT A POINT FURTHER ALONG THAN SOME OF THE OTHERS. THEY PROPOSE A CONSTRUCTION TIMEFRAME OF SEVEN MONTHS, WHICH SEEMS REASONABLE GIVEN THE WORK THAT'S PROPOSED. THEY DO HAVE TO DEAL WITH A CITY ENTITY THAT I WOULD PRESUME HAS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THEY NEED TO COMPLETE THEIR REVIEWS. THAT SEEMED LIKE THEY REALLY UNDERSTOOD THE TIMEFRAME THEY NEEDED TO DO THIS WORK. SO I RATED THEM ABOVE AVERAGE ON TIMELINE AND MILESTONES. | ||||||||
| IN THIS CASE ON THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, IT SEEMS -- THIS WAS MY EARLIEST THAT I REVIEWED, SO MY RECOLLECTION MAY BE FUZZY, BUT IT SEEMED THAT THEY DID EXCEED THE MATCH REQUIREMENTS, AND THEY SEEMED TO BE USING ALL NEW MONIES. PLEASE JUMP IN, STAFF, IF I'M WRONG. IT WAS ONE OF THE FEW THAT I REVIEWED THAT WAS USING ALL NEW MONIES. SO I FELT THAT THAT REALLY ELEVATED THEIR LEVEL OF COMMITMENT, AND I RATED THEM THE HIGHEST SCORE FOR THAT. IS THAT A TRUE STATEMENT, RICK, THAT IS ALL NEW, THERE'S NO PRIOR? I THINK I HAD PROBLEMS WITH THIS MATCH TOO. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: RICK, DO WE NEED -- | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I'M JUST TRYING TO CATCH UP IN TERMS OF WE DID FIND THE TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR, AND I WAS JUST GETTING TO THAT. THIS INDICATES THE MATCHING FUNDS ARE FROM THE EQUIPMENT AND RENOVATION MATCH FROM ITS YEARLY CAPITAL BUDGET FUNDS. SO WE'RE SEEING THAT AS BEING A CASH MATCH FOR THIS CASE. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: OKAY. IN THE HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: BEFORE YOU GO ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, SO I CAN UNDERSTAND, UNDER INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT IT SAYS THERE'S 173,000 MATCHING FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION, 210 FOR EQUIPMENT. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: CORRECT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: FOR A TOTAL 383, BUT THAT IS -- | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THAT IS THE AMOUNT THAT'S ON THE SYNOPSIS. IT'S JUST THAT THE CONSTRUCTION AMOUNT, INSTEAD OF BEING 173,250, IT'S 17,250. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: OKAY. AND ON THE CHART AS WELL, THE SUMMARY CHART DOES NOT TRACK THE NARRATIVE. THE SUMMARY COMPARISON OF PROJECTS. IT'S GREAT TO KNOW THAT THIS IS A POSITIVE THING TO DISCOVER. AND, DEBORAH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH THAT IN YOUR DESCRIPTION WE FIND THAT, IN FACT, THAT THE MATCH IS SOLID. SO THAT'S A VERY POSITIVE DISCOVERY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I ASSUME THAT PERCENTAGE, RICK, WOULD BE ACCURATE OF THE 29 PERCENT. IF WE COULD JUST VERIFY THAT. BASED ON THE 383, MY GUT IS -- | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: 20 PERCENT WOULD BE 265,000, SO WE'RE ABOVE. WE HAVE THE CORRECT AMOUNTS ON THE MATCHING FUND TOTAL. IT'S JUST THAT THAT CONSTRUCTION LINE WAS NOT CORRECT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. THANK YOU, RICK. GO AHEAD, DEBORAH. SORRY ABOUT THAT. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: THAT'S OKAY. ON THE HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE, THE THREE PROJECTS THAT THEY LISTED ARE RELATIVELY SMALL TO MIDSIZE, BUT IT'S BASICALLY COMPARATIVE TO THE AMOUNT THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING. SO THAT IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT THEY DO SAY THEY HAVE A TRACK RECORD FOR FUNDING AND BUILDING FACILITIES FOR ITS LAB PROGRAMS, ALTHOUGH THEY DON'T ELABORATE IN A LOT OF DETAIL, I RATED THEM ON THE HIGH SIDE FOR HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE. | ||||||||
| RESPONSIVENESS, I RATED THEM IN THE HIGH SCORE, ALTHOUGH I MUST REITERATE I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS WITH WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE RESPONSIVE IN THE CATEGORY OF GOOD FAITH EFFORT FOR CALIFORNIA BUSINESSES. SO I HAD SOME CONCERN THERE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: COULD YOU REPEAT THAT, YOUR VIEW ON THE RESPONSIVENESS? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: WELL, ALTHOUGH THE RFA DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY STATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR DEMONSTRATING A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO PURCHASE GOODS AND SERVICES FROM CALIFORNIA BUSINESSES, THE INTENT OF THE PROPOSITION IS CLEARLY TO DO THAT VERY THING. AND WE DO HAVE IT IN OUR GRANTS ADMINISTRATION POLICIES. SO TO SAY THAT THEY WERE RESPONSIVE TO THE RFA, THEY WERE, HOWEVER NOT NECESSARILY TO THE ADMINISTRATION POLICIES THAT WE'VE ESTABLISHED OR PROPOSITION 71. SO I FEEL THAT THERE'S A CONCERN THERE, AND I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW TO SCORE THAT GIVEN THAT THEY MET THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFA. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO SCORE THAT ISSUE. I THINK WE CAN HAVE A PRESUMPTIVE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WILL BE COVERED IN OUR AGENDA ITEM FOR TOMORROW. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I'D LIKE TO COMMENT. AS DEBORAH POINTS OUT, THE INITIATIVE DOES SET FORTH THIS PREFERENCE. AND THAT WOULD BE A LEGITIMATE FUNDAMENTAL DOCUMENT ASSUMED AS PART OF THE RFA. AND IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO SCORE IT IN THE RESPONSIVENESS, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, BECAUSE IT IS A PART OF THE STATED TERMS OF THE INITIATIVE. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: JUST ON THAT PRESUMPTIVE ELEMENT, I THINK WE COULD BE PRESUMPTIVE OF OTHERS WHERE IT'S UNCLEAR IF THESE ESTIMATES ARE FROM CALIFORNIA BUSINESSES. IN THIS CASE THE BID ITSELF INCLUDED IS NOT FROM A CALIFORNIA BUSINESS. THEY ARE UNDER WAY AS WE SPEAK. IT IS NOT CLEAR IF THEY'VE PURCHASED THESE PIECES OF EQUIPMENT DUE TO LONG LEAD TIMES. MY CONCERN IS I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN PRESUME. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I WASN'T AWARE OF THAT FACTUAL INFORMATION. THAT ACTUALLY WOULD CHANGE MY OPINION ON THIS ISSUE. SO I WASN'T AWARE THAT IT WAS FROM A NON-CALIFORNIA ENTITY. SO OKAY. SO ANYTHING ELSE, DEBORAH, BEFORE JOAN TAKES OVER? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: LET ME CLARIFY THAT IT IS A QUOTE THAT WAS PROVIDED. WHAT'S UNCLEAR IS IF IT WENT BEYOND A QUOTE AND BECAME A PURCHASE ORDER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU, DEBORAH. JOAN, YOU'RE UP.MS. SAMUELSON: I WAS JUST GOING TO MAKE A BASEBALL ANALOGY, SO I'LL TAKE THE BAT. I DON'T HAVE A LOT TO ADD. I'M GOING TO DEFER A LOT TO DEBORAH'S EXPERTISE HERE. I HAD SOME OF THE SAME QUESTIONS ABOUT LACK OF A DETAILED NARRATIVE UNDER FEASIBILITY. I'M NOT AS CONCERNED ABOUT THE NORTH CAROLINA SUPPLIER, ALTHOUGH I DO AGREE THAT THERE SHOULD BE A BASIC GOOD FAITH ADHERENCE TO THE TERMS OF THE INITIATIVE, OF COURSE. BUT WE COULD HAVE AN APPLICANT WHO PERFECTLY ADHERES TO EVERY REQUIREMENT OF THAT SORT THAT ARE IN THE INTEREST IN GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA'S ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE AND SO ON. THAT COULD BE THE EQUIVALENT OF, IF YOU WILL, LEAVING 20, 30 PEOPLE ON BASE IF YOU NEVER GET ANYBODY HOME. AND SO I WOULD HATE FOR US TO BE SO ATTENTIVE TO THE TREES THAT WE DON'T LOOK AT THE FOREST. AND I GUESS THAT'S REALLY ENTIRELY A DISCUSSION FOR THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW. HOW THESE TWO INTERSECT ISN'T REALLY -- IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME THAT WE MIGHT NOT WANT TO TWEAK IT A BIT TO MAKE SURE THAT OVERWHELMING ISSUE IS BEFORE US SOMEHOW AT ALL TIMES TO GIVE A CONTEXT TO THESE OTHER ISSUES. | ||||||||
| I HAD SOME OF THE SAME CONCERNS THAT YOU MENTIONED ABOUT THE DESIGN CONCERNS AND SOME CONCERN ABOUT THE ABILITY TO TRUST THEIR CALCULATIONS, AS YOU SAID. THE NEW MONEY LOOKS GOOD. I THINK THAT'S ABOUT IT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU, JOAN. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: YOU'RE WELCOME. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ANY QUESTIONS FOR JOAN OR DEBORAH? ANY COMMENTS? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I'D JUST MAKE A COMMENT, NOT TO OVERPLAY THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS, THAT IT IS A PREFERENCE. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE INDIVIDUALLY, IT GOES TO RESPONSIVENESS, BUT IT STILL MAY BE IN THE INTEREST OF AN APPLICANT TO, IF THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE FROM OUT-OF-STATE OR A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT IS ONLY UNIQUELY AVAILABLE FROM OUT-OF-STATE, IT'S THE MISSION THAT THEY'VE GOT TO SERVE. SO IT'S A BALANCING ACT, BUT I WOULD EXPECT THEM TO BUY THAT UNIQUE PIECE OF EQUIPMENT OUT-OF-STATE BECAUSE IT IS A PREFERENCE. IT WOULD BE GOOD IF THERE'S AN EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE PIECE OF EQUIPMENT, FORMATTED CENTRIFUGE OR SOME EXOTIC PIECE OF EQUIPMENT THAT'S VERY EXPENSIVE, IF IT IS UNIQUELY AVAILABLE OUT-OF-STATE, THEY MIGHT TELL US THAT, AND THEN THE PREFERENCE REALLY WOULDN'T APPLY BECAUSE YOU CAN'T MEET THE PREFERENCE AND SERVE THE MISSION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU, BOB. ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? SO IF EVERYONE COULD JOT DOWN THEIR PRELIMINARY SCORES FOR APPLICATION 512. | ||||||||
| WE'LL MOVE, LOOKS LIKE, TO APPLICATION 500. RICK, I'VE NOTICED THAT THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION HAS A TECHNICAL FINANCIAL ISSUE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES, WE DO. RECUSAL ON 500-1 IS LANSING. | ||||||||
| (MEMBER LANSING IS RECUSED FROM APPLICATION 500 AND IS NOT PRESENT IN THE ROOM.) | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THE PRIMARY REVIEWER IS MEMBER KASHIAN, AND THE SECONDARY REVIEWER IS MEMBER SAMUELSON OR VICE CHAIR SERRANO-SEWELL. | ||||||||
| THE ONE STAFF ISSUE HERE IS THAT THE PROPOSAL IS BASICALLY A PROJECT THAT IS IN PROCESS AND WOULD LIKELY BE CONCLUDED OR COMPLETED IN CONSTRUCTION SOON AFTER THE GRANT IS APPROVED; AND, THEREFORE, ALL OF THE ISSUES THAT YOU'RE CONTEMPLATING IN TERMS OF GRANT ADMINISTRATION, IN TERMS OF PREVAILING WAGE, AND OTHER ISSUES NEED TO BE ADDRESSED FOR THAT ISSUE. | ||||||||
| I DON'T KNOW. WE'VE COVERED THAT IN THE STAFF GRANT ADMINISTRATION POLICY, BUT THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT WE BROUGHT UP. AND I THINK BECAUSE -- IT WAS THE FIRST TIME IT WAS ENCOUNTERED IN THE PREVIOUS ORDER AND SO -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THIS IS NOT A MATCHING ISSUE, RICK? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I DON'T THINK SO. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT WE DON'T WANT TO PUT OURSELVES IN THE POSITION OF PENALIZING COURAGE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: ABSOLUTELY NOT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IF THE ISSUE IS THAT SOMEONE HAS REALLY PUT THEMSELVES ON THE LINE AND TAKEN A RISK TO SERVE THE MISSION THAT WE'RE SERVING, I WOULDN'T WANT TO PUT OURSELVES IN A POSITION THAT, BASED ON AUDITED EXPENDITURES, THAT WE COULDN'T REIMBURSE CERTAIN COSTS THAT HAVE BEEN INCURRED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE AWARD IF THEY ARE LEGITIMATELY IN BUDGET, AUDITED FOR OUR MISSION, AND WITHIN THE RFA. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I GUESS THE ONLY HITCH MIGHT COME UP, AND MAYBE IT WON'T, IS IF THEY'VE ALREADY EXPENDED FUNDS SORT OF ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THEY'RE GOING TO GET A GRANT OR THEY'RE BEING COURAGEOUS, WHATEVER, AND SUBSEQUENTLY WE DECIDE THAT, THROUGH OUR GRANTS ADMINISTRATION POLICY, THAT WE WON'T FUND A CERTAIN LINE ITEM. THAT'S THE RISK THEY TAKE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: EXACTLY. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD THAT. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: EXCUSE ME. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT, IN FACT, ON 518-1, THAT, IN FACT, THIS WORKING GROUP DID TAKE ACTION TO NOT REIMBURSE PREVIOUSLY EXPENDED COST, THAT, IN FACT, WE WOULD USE THAT AS A MATCH ONLY, BUT NOT REIMBURSE IT WITH CIRM FUNDS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THEY WERE ABLE TO USE IT AS A MATCH, SO THEY REALLY WEREN'T LOSING THE BENEFIT OF THE EXPENDITURE. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THAT'S CORRECT. BUT WE HAD DECIDED THAT, INDEED, WE WOULDN'T REIMBURSE THEM. I THINK THAT WHAT I HEARD, AND PERHAPS I HEARD INCORRECTLY, THAT IF IT WAS AUDITABLE, THAT WE COULD THEN TAKE CIRM FUNDS AND REIMBURSE THEM. AND I THINK THAT RICK BRINGS UP AN INTERESTING ISSUE, THAT, OF COURSE, TO GO BACK AND AUDIT AND MAKE SURE THAT THE INSTITUTE HAS, INDEED, FOLLOWED ALL THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE FUTURE GRANTS AGREEMENT -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IF THEY DON'T QUALIFY UNDER THE GRANT ADMINISTRATION POLICY BECAUSE THEY VIOLATED SOME AGREEMENT, THEY DON'T QUALIFY. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THEN I THINK MAYBE WE MIGHT WANT TO GO BACK AND REVISIT 518 JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CONSISTENT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WE'RE UNIFORM. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I WOULD AGREE THAT MAKES GOOD SENSE. DO WE NEED TO DO THAT NOW, OR CAN WE DO THIS ONE FIRST? LET'S DO THIS ONE. THEN WE'LL GO BACK AND LOOK AT THAT SPECIFIC ISSUE FOR 518 TO MAKE SURE THAT FAIRNESS IS ENSURED. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THERE'S STILL A FINANCIAL ISSUE. SO, RICK, WHY DON'T YOU WALK THEM THROUGH THAT MATCHING FUND. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WE HAD INDICATED IN THE STAFF ANALYSIS THAT, AGAIN, BECAUSE THIS IS AN EARLY ONE FOR REVIEW, WE'VE ALREADY HAD THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE THE SHARED LAB IS BASICALLY THE SITE FOR THE TECHNIQUES COURSE. AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE POSED IS HOW WOULD THIS BE -- THE IDEA THAT THERE'S AN EFFICIENCY, THIS IS A POSITIVE CIRCUMSTANCE, THAT WE WERE TRYING TO CONVEY THAT YOU'RE NOT REALLY GETTING ANY SCORING ON THE STEM CELL TECHNIQUES COURSE BECAUSE THEY'VE GONE AND BEEN EFFICIENT AND CLEVER IN PROVIDING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT COURSE TO OCCUR IN SHARED-USE SPACE. SO IT WAS ACTUALLY A STAFF COMMENT OF SOME COMPLEMENTARY NATURE COMPARED TO THE REST THAT WE'VE HAD TODAY.CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: FAIR ENOUGH. I WITHDRAW MY COMMENT ABOUT THERE'S A TECHNICAL FINANCIAL ISSUE ON THIS APPLICATION. SO ARE WE GOING -- LET'S GO BACK TO THE PRIOR ISSUE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? SO DOES STAFF HAVE A PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO THIS ISSUE? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: HOW DID WE RESOLVE IT IN 518? REFRESH MY MEMORY. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THERE WAS $60,000 THAT APPROVAL AT THE JUNE ICOC MEETING WOULD HAVE BEEN SPENT, AND THAT PARTICULAR APPLICANT ASKED FOR REIMBURSEMENT, CIRM WOULD REIMBURSE THEM FOR THE FUNDS. WHAT THE WORKING GROUP DECIDED WAS THAT, IN FACT, FUNDS EXPENDED PRIOR TO APPROVAL COULD BE USED AS MATCHING FUNDS, BUT NOT TO BE REIMBURSED. SO THIS IS THE SAME ISSUE. IT'S JUST ORDER OF MAGNITUDE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: THAT'S EXACTLY THE WAY I VIEW IT AS WELL. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WHAT'S THAT MEAN? | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: WHAT IT MEANS IS THAT THEY'VE DECIDED TO GO AHEAD AND DO THIS WHETHER OR NOT THEY GET THE GRANT OR NOT. I CONSIDER THAT A POSITIVE. IF WE CHOOSE -- IF WE CHOOSE TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF THE GRANT, ALL THAT DOES IS INCREASE THEIR MATCHING SHARE, WHICH I THINK IS WEAK TO BEGIN WITH. I DON'T THINK WE OUGHT TO PENALIZE PEOPLE THAT ARE PROCEEDING AND ARE IN THE TIMELINE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WE ALSO HAVE THE ISSUE THAT ON MAJOR FACILITIES WITH LONG LEAD-TIME, PEOPLE ARE HAVING TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME TO GET THE INFORMATION WE NEED. SO IF WE'RE GOING TO START PENALIZING THEM FOR SPENDING THE MONEY TO GET THE INFORMATION WE NEED, WE'RE PUTTING OURSELVES IN A BAD POSITION. | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: THIS IS MY ONLY CONCERN, AND I MAY NOT UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. BUT THE INITIATIVE PROVIDES AND THE RFA PROVIDES THAT PAST -- FUNDS EXPENDED IN THE PAST AFTER JANUARY 1, 2005, MAY BE USED FOR MATCHING FUNDS. AND WHAT WE ARE SAYING, IF WE SAY WE'RE GOING TO ALSO REIMBURSE, IS THERE NO LONGER ANY DISTINCTION? IN OTHER WORDS, THE APPLICANT CAN CHOOSE TO ASK US TO REIMBURSE IT, AND THEN CAN'T USE IT FOR MATCHING FUNDS IF IT'S ALREADY REIMBURSED, OR IS THAT WHERE WE'RE DRAWING A REAL DISTINCTION? SO WE'RE SAYING IF YOU SPENT IT ALREADY, YOU CAN USE IT AS YOUR MATCH, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO REIMBURSE IT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO -- | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: LET ME OFFER THIS ISSUE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ED, CAN YOU HOLD ON ONE SECOND, PLEASE. I JUST WANT TO THROW OUT A CONCEPT TO THE GROUP. SO COULD WE POTENTIALLY AMEND THE MOTION THAT WE PASSED EARLIER TO CLARIFY THIS ISSUE? IS THAT POSSIBLE? | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: YES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO WHAT IF THOSE DOLLARS, FIRST, HAVE TO GO TOWARDS MATCHING TO MAKE SURE THEY MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT, AND THEN ANY DOLLARS SPENT CAN BE REIMBURSED AFTER THE MATCHING COMPONENT IS MET? | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: IF YOU'RE USING MATCHING FUNDS, YOU HAVE NO INCENTIVE TO MATCH BEYOND THE 20 PERCENT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YEAH. YOU HAVE AN INCENTIVE BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET A HIGHER SCORE BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO GO BEYOND THE MINIMUM TO GET A HIGHER INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT SCORE. IF YOU JUST MEET THE 20 PERCENT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE PEOPLE HERE THAT HAD HIGH COSTS, THAT FROM AN INDIVIDUAL PERSPECTIVE, I ONLY DEALT WITH THAT HIGH COST BECAUSE THEY MADE A 50-PERCENT MATCH. SO THERE'S A LOT OF REASONS TO HAVE A HIGHER MATCH. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I'M VERY NERVOUS ABOUT REIMBURSING. I'M FINE, IF PEOPLE HAVE SPENT MONEY, ALLOWING THEM TO MAKE THE MATCH. IT SEEMS LIKE WE'VE DONE A LOT OF WORK ON TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE THAT. PAYING BACK MONEY TO SOMEONE FOR SOMETHING THAT THEY DID BEFORE WE EVEN ISSUED AN RFA JUST RUBS ME VERY WRONG. AND WE MAY DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT IN THE CONTEXT. WE SHOULD NOT MAKE EVERY DECISION THAT WE TAKE TODAY RELEVANT TO THE LARGE FACILITIES GRANT. WE MAY DECIDE TO HAVE A DIFFERENT STRUCTURE; BUT IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS GRANT FOR TODAY, I THINK THAT IT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE TO REIMBURSE. IT'S NOT THAT MUCH MONEY INVOLVED. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: YES. I DON'T THINK REIMBURSEMENT IS THE ISSUE. I THINK THE ISSUE IS THAT THEY'VE STARTED BUILDING THIS THING, AND THEY'RE USING THEIR MATCHING FUNDS TO BEGIN WITH. IF THEY GET PAST THE POINT OF USING THEIR MATCHING FUNDS, THEN YOU'RE PLACED IN A POSITION OF REDUCING THE GRANT AMOUNT. WHY WOULD YOU EVEN THINK ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: CAN I READ THE PART OF THE RFA THAT MAY SPEAK TO THIS BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE IT DOES? COSTS INCURRED BEFORE THE TIME OF THE GRANT AWARD FOR CONSTRUCTION OR RENOVATION OF SPACE OR ATSC RESEARCH OUTSIDE THE FEDERAL GUIDELINES CANNOT BE REIMBURSED, BUT MAY BE USED AS MATCHING FUNDS IF COSTS WERE INCURRED AFTER JANUARY 1ST. IS THAT THE ANSWER? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK THAT'S PRETTY CLEAR, DEBORAH. THANK YOU FOR READING THAT. I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: YOU'RE DANGEROUS. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: IT ALSO APPLIES TO EQUIPMENT. YOU'RE NOT MY CHILD. WAIT TILL YOU SEE WHAT I DO TO MY KIDS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THAT WAS EXCELLENT, DEBORAH. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: IT'S SO ANNOYING WHEN THOSE NON-LAWYERS CITE THE STATUTE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BOB. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY I THINK DEBORAH IS RIGHT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO GIVEN -- | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: SHE ALWAYS IS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DO WE NEED TO MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENTS TO OUR PRIOR MOTION? | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: NO. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO CAN WE GO BACK TO -- DO WE NEED A MOTION ON THIS? CAN I HAVE STAFF PROPOSE EXACTLY WHAT THAT MOTION WOULD BE, PLEASE? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE THAT CIRM SHALL NOT OR SHOULD NOT REIMBURSE FUNDS EXPENDED PRIOR TO, AND I THINK THIS IS THE ISSUE A WELL, AWARD, AND IT MAY BE THAT YOU WANT TO SAY APPROVAL BECAUSE APPROVAL WILL HAPPEN IN JUNE, JUNE 5TH AT THE ICOC ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, AND AWARD WILL HAPPEN SOMETIME AFTER THAT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. SO I PROPOSE STAFF'S -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: SO MOVED. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: EXCUSE ME. I WAS JUST REMINDED THAT ANY OF THOSE FUNDS WOULD THEN BE APPLIED TO THE MATCH. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. SO I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON THIS ISSUE. DO I HAVE A SECOND? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YOU'RE USING THE WORD "APPROVAL." SHE GAVE YOU TWO CHOICES. WE'RE USING THE WORD "APPROVAL"; IS THAT RIGHT? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I THINK MS. HOFFMAN SAID AWARD APPROVAL. THAT'S HOW I HEARD IT. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE USE THE DATE APPROVAL SINCE IT'S A DATE CERTAIN OF JUNE 5TH. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. SO I PROPOSE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AS THE MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: SECOND. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SECOND, JANET. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. SO THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. | ||||||||
| ED, YOU'RE GOING TO DO THE PRIMARY REVIEW NOW. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I UNDERSTAND BOB WANTS TO -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT, THAT IF WE PUT A PLACEHOLDER THAT WITH MAJOR FACILITIES, THERE MAY BE VERY LARGE LEAD-TIME COSTS, AND WE SHOULD LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE WORDING WE PUT IN THE RFA ADDRESSING AND TAKING INTO THE ACCOUNT THE MAGNITUDE OF THOSE COSTS AND HOW WE CAN TREAT THEM. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, BOB. ED, IF YOU COULD PROCEED WITH THE PRIMARY REVIEW. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: THANK YOU. I CONSIDERED THIS ABOVE AVERAGE IN TERMS OF FEASIBILITY, HIGHEST FEASIBILITY. OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE IN THE PROCESS OF DOING IT. | ||||||||
| COSTWISE IT'S IN THE MEDIUM HIGH RANGE, AND THE TIMELINES ARE THE BEST I'VE SEEN IN ANY APPLICATION. THEY'RE ALREADY STARTING AND DOING THE WORK. | ||||||||
| SO WHAT WAS WEAK, IN MY OPINION, IS WHAT THEY'RE CURING THEMSELVES, WHICH IS THEIR MATCHING FUNDS AND THEIR INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT, SO I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO SOLVE MY PROBLEM THEMSELVES BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO REIMBURSE THE MONEY. | ||||||||
| THEIR PERFORMANCE IS ABOVE AVERAGE. RESPONSIVENESS IS THE HIGHEST GRADE THAT I CAN GIVE THEM. AND I RECOMMEND MAKING IT AS EASY AS POSSIBLE FOR THEM WITHOUT VIOLATING OUR FISCAL RULES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN KLEIN: THANK YOU, ED. AND, DAVID. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I'M THE SECONDARY REVIEWER, AND I'LL JUST SAY ED HIT EVERYTHING ABSOLUTELY ON POINT. FEASIBILITY THROUGH THE RESPONSIVENESS THEY EXCEL. WE ADDRESSED THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT IN A SORT OF FUN, ROUNDABOUT WAY, BUT WE HAVE. IT IS AN INSTITUTION THAT HAS A GENUINE COMMITMENT TO THIS FIELD OF SCIENCE, AND IT'S AN APPLICATION THAT I WOULD RECOMMEND FOR FUNDING. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WHAT ABOUT HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE, THEY'VE DONE PROJECTS OF SIMILAR MAGNITUDE, AND THEY HAVE A DECENT RECORD ON MEETING THEIR DEADLINES AND BUDGETS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: DAVID, I HAVE A COMMENT. I ALSO TOOK A LOOK AT THIS ONE, AND THE COURSE WAS, I THOUGHT, TERRIFIC. THEY WERE GOING TO PUT THROUGH TWO TO THREE OR FOUR PEOPLE A MONTH, TRAINEES, AND PLAN TO RUN THEIR PROGRAM EVERY MONTH. THERE WAS NO TUITION, AND THEY TALKED ABOUT CONTINUOUS ACCESS AFTER THE COURSE, CONTINUOUS ACCESS FOR THOSE WHO WENT THROUGH THE COURSE TO FACULTY AND THE EQUIPMENT. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: THANK YOU. IT'S A GOOD POINT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, JANET. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: SO DID THAT ELEVATE THE SCORES FOR THE REVIEWERS, THE COURSE TECHNIQUES? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I WOULD HAVE ASSIGNED THE SAME SOURCE IN THE COURSE TECHNIQUES,WHICH IS PRETTY HIGH. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER COMMENTS, I'D LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT AND HAVE EVERYONE PUT THE PRELIMINARY SCORE DOWN FOR APPLICATION 500. | ||||||||
| APPLICATION 501, RICK, IT APPEARS THAT THERE ARE TECHNICAL FINANCIAL ISSUES ON THIS APPLICATION NUMBER. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: CORRECT. AND RECUSALS ON THIS ONE ARE MEMBER SHEEHY AND MEMBER FEIT. | ||||||||
| (MEMBERS LANSING, SHEEHY AND FEIT ARE RECUSED FROM APPLICATION 501 AND ARE NOT PRESENT IN THE ROOM.) | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THE PROPOSAL IS FOR BOTH A SHARED RESEARCH LABORATORY AND A STEM CELL TECHNIQUES COURSE. THERE'S $2 MILLION EACH FOR CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT FOR THE SHARED LAB, AND A TOTAL OF 500,000, MOST OF THAT IN CONSTRUCTION, FOR THE TECHNIQUES COURSE. | ||||||||
| THE PRIMARY REVIEWER IS CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER AND SECONDARY REVIEWER IS MEMBER SAMUELSON. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: DON'T WE HAVE TO GO OVER THE TECHNICAL ISSUE FIRST? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I'M SORRY. ON THE ISSUE THAT A PORTION OF THE FUNDS BASICALLY AS DESCRIBED IN THE | ||||||||
| APPLICATION ARE UNALLOWABLE COSTS UNDER OUR DEFINITION OF EQUIPMENT AND SO FORTH. SO THE APPLICABLE STANDARD PROCEDURE THAT YOU'VE USED ON UNALLOWABLE COSTS WOULD APPLY IN THIS CASE, THAT CIRM SHOULD REDUCE THE GRANT AMOUNT, APPLICANTS PROVIDE INSTITUTIONAL FUNDS FOR THOSE UNALLOWABLE EXPENSES WITH NO CHANGE IN SCOPE. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: SO MOVED. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I SECOND IT. I'D LIKE TO HAVE A VOICE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. MOTION PASSES. | ||||||||
| SO GIVE ME ONE SECOND. I'LL DO THE PRIMARY REVIEW ON THIS ONE. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: IS THERE A SECONDARY TECHNICAL ISSUE REGARDING THE TECHNIQUES COURSE, OR IS THAT TO BE DISCUSSED LATER? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THAT'S JUST A POLICY ISSUE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO FEASIBILITY, THE PROJECT WAS QUITE FEASIBLE. THERE WERE NO MAJOR ISSUES NOTED IN THE INFORMATION, ALTHOUGH I WAS A LITTLE TROUBLED BY THE LEVEL OF DETAIL AND THE LEVEL OF PLANNING THAT WAS PROVIDED. AGAIN, VERY FEASIBLE PROJECT. BUILDING OUT LABORATORY SPACE IN EXISTING NEW BUILDING, PROVIDING A STEM CELL TECHNIQUES COURSE. SO, AGAIN, THERE'S NO ISSUE IN TERMS OF FEASIBILITY. AGAIN, COMPARED TO SOME OF THE OTHER APPLICATIONS, THE LEVEL OF DETAIL COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER. | ||||||||
| THE COST SEEMS TO BE VERY GOOD COMPARED TO OTHER REVIEWED APPLICATIONS. IT WAS, AGAIN, NOT EXCELLENT, BUT VERY GOOD, $399 PER ASSIGNABLE SQUARE FOOT. AND THE OVERALL SCHEDULE WAS GOOD TO SOMEWHAT AGGRESSIVE. IT WAS ABOUT AN EIGHT-MONTH SCHEDULE, SO I WAS PLEASED WHEN I SAW THAT. AND IT SEEMED APPROPRIATE FOR WHAT WORK WAS BEING DONE. | ||||||||
| THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT SEEMED TO BE ABOVE AVERAGE. YOU KNOW, THEY EXCEEDED THE MATCH WITH 22 AND 21 PERCENT. I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE SEEN A HIGHER LEVEL OF COMMITMENT, BUT, AGAIN, THEY DID EXCEED IT. | ||||||||
| THE HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE SEEMED TO BE VERY GOOD TO EXCELLENT. ALTHOUGH ONE MAJOR PROJECT IS NOT COMPLETED, AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL TO HAVE MORE INFORMATION ON THAT ONE. SO, AGAIN, I WAS VERY PLEASED WITH THE HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE THAT THEY SHOWED. | ||||||||
| YOU KNOW, THE OVERALL RESPONSIVENESS WAS GOOD; BUT, AGAIN, I THINK THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A GREATER LEVEL OF DETAIL COULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. AGAIN, WHAT THEY PROVIDED WAS ACCEPTABLE, BUT IT JUST GAVE ME SOME PAUSE. SO, AGAIN, IT WAS ACCEPTABLE, BUT I WOULD SAY SLIGHTLY ABOVE AVERAGE. | ||||||||
| ON THE TECHNIQUES COURSE I THOUGHT IT SEEMED LIKE THEY WERE -- THE AREA THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT, THE COSTS SEEMED TO BE HIGH RELATIVE TO THE AMOUNT OF WORK THEY WERE DOING. SO IN TERMS OF THE COST ON THAT PARTICULAR TECHNIQUES COURSE, I WAS NOT AS HAPPY WITH THAT, SO I WOULD DOWNGRADE THE COST RATING TO THAT TO BE SOMEWHAT LESS THAN THE COST TO DO THE SHARED LAB SPACE. | ||||||||
| SO OVERALL A GOOD APPLICATION, BUT I THINK WITH SOME GREATER DETAIL, IT COULD HAVE BEEN AN EXCELLENT APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| SO ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PRIMARY REVIEWER? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: I HAVE A QUESTION. THIS APPEARS TO BE A VACANT OR COLD SHELL SPACE, MEANING THERE'S REALLY NOTHING THERE EXCEPT FOR STAIRS OR ELEVATORS TO IT? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THOUGHT IT WAS A WARM SHELL. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: IT'S ACTUALLY A CROSS BETWEEN A COLD SHELL AND A WARM SHELL. THERE'S NO HOOK-UPS, BUT IT'S ALL THERE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: A LUKE WARM SHELL. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: THERE'S A NOTATION THAT SOME OF THE PRIMARY THINGS THAT ONE WOULD REQUIRE ON A FLOOR, SUCH AS BATHROOMS, DON'T EXIST. AND PRESUMABLY YOU WOULD NEED BATHROOMS FOR THE RESEARCHERS AND THE TRAINEES, AND SOMEWHERE THAT'S GOT TO HAPPEN. ARE WE CONCERNED AT ALL ABOUT THAT? | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: IS THIS THE BUCK? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THIS IS ONE OF THE EARLIER ONES I REVIEWED. I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND CHECK MY NOTES ON THIS, BUT I THINK IT WAS PRETTY CLEAR THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE PUTTING BATHROOMS IN. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: DAVID, IF YOU DON'T MIND. I'M SORRY. IN FACT, THEY DO NOTE THAT THERE ARE NO FACILITIES ON THIS FLOOR. AND IN THE FIRST PART OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE SHARED LAB, THE APPLICANT DOES SUGGEST THAT PERHAPS THESE FACILITIES WOULD BE DONE IN THE TECHNIQUES COURSE; BUT THEN IN REVIEWING THE TECHNIQUES COURSE, IN FACT, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THESE FACILITIES WILL BE PUT IN. SO I THINK YOUR COMMENT IS CORRECT. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: I WAS CONCERNED BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S INTENDED TO BE A MULTITENANT OR A MULTI-OCCUPANT FLOOR. NO DISCUSSION OF COMMON AREA HALLWAYS, DEMISING WALLS, BATHROOMS THAT I CAN SEE IN THE ANALYSIS. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: CERTAINLY THE RESTROOMS ARE NOT INCLUDED. I DO THINK THAT YOU WILL SEE THE WALL SPACE GO UP. IT'S A 2800 SQUARE FOOT SHELLED FLOOR, AND THIS IS JUST ONE VERY SMALL PIECE OF IT. AND THE TECHNIQUES COURSE WOULD THEN PROVIDE A MULTIPURPOSE ROOM FIT-OUT, BUT, AGAIN, NOT WITH ALL THE AMENITIES FOR THAT PARTICULAR FLOOR. SO, IN FACT, THE WAY IT'S BEEN DESIGNED, IT'S NEAR A STAIRWELL, SO IT LOOKS LIKE IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE EASY ENOUGH TO GET TO THE THIRD FLOOR -- | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: BUT WOULD THAT BE ADA? I DON'T THINK YOU CAN COUNT THAT -- | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: WELL, THERE'S ELEVATORS AS WELL BECAUSE THIS IS THE THIRD FLOOR OF A FOUR-STORY BUILDING. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: YEAH. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WOULD QUALIFY HAVING TO GO TO ANOTHER FLOOR. I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT IT SEEMS LIKE THIS ONE HAS SOME ISSUES THAT MAYBE DON'T FALL UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE PARTICULAR SPACE, BUT CLEARLY YOU NEED A COMPLEMENT OF CERTAIN KINDS OF AMENITIES ON THE FLOOR TO FUNCTION. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: AS I SAID, IN THE FIRST PART OF THE APPLICATION, IT DOES SUGGEST THAT THE RESTROOM FACILITIES WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE TECHNIQUES COURSE. AND GIVEN THE COST OF 465,000 FOR A MULTIPURPOSE ROOM, IT COULD SUGGEST THAT THERE'S MORE IN THERE, BUT IT'S NOT IDENTIFIED IN THAT SECTION OF THE APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: QUESTION FOR STAFF. IN OUR ADMINISTRATION POLICY, DO WE HAVE A REQUIREMENT THAT THEY MEET THE HANDICAPPED REQUIREMENTS, THE DISABLED? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: IT'S A LAW. IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE IN OURS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IF, IN FACT, THERE'S A REQUIREMENT FOR BATHROOMS ON A FLOOR, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MEET IT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: CORRECT. IT WOULD BE CODE. AND I MEAN I GUESS WE DON'T HAVE TO BE PRESUMPTIVE, BUT WE COULD PUT IN -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY HAVE INDICATED THAT THEY'RE GOING TO ACCOMMODATE IN THE TECHNIQUES COURSE THESE BATHROOMS. THEY DON'T SHOW THEM, BUT, IN FACT, WE CAN STATE THAT WE WILL HOLD THEM TO THEIR REPRESENTATION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK -- | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: CAN I JUST SAY QUICKLY THAT THERE'S NO WAY BUILDING BATHROOMS THEY'RE GOING TO MEET THEIR TIMELINE. AUGUST 2007, THAT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE UNLESS THERE'S THIS NEW MODULAR BATHROOM THAT COMES FULLY COMPLETE THAT YOU JUST STICK ON A RAW FLOOR. THAT'S A BIT OF A CONCERN BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW CAN THAT YOU BUILD A BATHROOM. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK THEY COULD BUILD A BATHROOM QUICKLY. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: IN A MONTH? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YEAH. IT WOULD BE AGGRESSIVE, BUT YES. REMEMBER, THIS IS A SHELL SPACE THAT THE PLUMBING AND THE RISERS IS ALL THERE. THEY JUST HAVE TO DO THE FINISH WORK. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: POINT OF ORDER. JANET WRIGHT IS BRINGING UP A DIAGRAM THAT SHOWS A BATHROOM. WE'RE TRYING TO DECIDE IF IT'S ON THE FLOOR. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: HOLD ON. I'M GOING TO LOOK AT THE PLANS THAT THEY'VE GIVEN. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AT THIS LEVEL OF DETAIL, CAN'T WE MAKE THE NEEDS KNOWN AND DELEGATE THIS TO STAFF AND FOCUS ON THE LARGER ISSUES? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I SEE BATHROOMS. I SEE TWO TOILETS. SO I DO SEE AN ADA, IT LOOKS TO BE AN ADA BATHROOM ON THE FLOOR. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER, MR. KASHIAN HAS A COMMENT. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: WOULD YOU SAY, IN YOUR OPINION, THEY UNDERESTIMATE THE CONSTRUCTION COST AND OVERESTIMATE THE TIME? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO -- | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: AND IF THEY DO, DO THEY SHOW A CLEAR ABILITY TO MAKE UP THE COSTS OTHER THAN WITH OUR MONEY? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WELL, SO YOU'RE ASKING ME TWO QUESTIONS. SO LET ME ANSWER THE FIRST. IN TERMS OF THE OVERALL SCHEDULE, I SHOW THAT THEY'RE COMPLETE MARCH '08, EIGHT MONTHS. SO I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE SCHEDULE. I THINK THE SCHEDULE IS SLIGHTLY AGGRESSIVE, AND I THINK IT'S DOABLE. GIVEN THAT THEY'VE GOT A LUKE WARM SHELL HERE AND A KIND OF GOOD INFRASTRUCTURE TO BUILD FROM, I THINK THAT'S VERY DOABLE. | ||||||||
| IN TERMS OF THE COST, I THINK THAT THE COSTS ARE TOTALLY IN LINE WITH WHAT I WOULD HAVE EXPECTED TO SEE HERE FOR THIS WORK OTHER THAN I THOUGHT THE COSTS WERE SOMEWHAT HIGH FOR THE STEM CELL TECHNIQUES COURSE. SO MAYBE THEY HAVE THE BATHROOM IN THE STEM CELL TECHNIQUES COURSE. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THEY DO HAVE THE BATHROOM IN THE TECHNIQUES COURSE, SO I STAND CORRECTED. IN FACT, IT DOES LOOK LIKE IT SHOULD BE IN THERE. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: AND TO ADD THAT CORRECTION, THE ANALYSIS, THERE'S A TYPO. IT SAYS MARCH 2007, BUT IT'S CLEARLY MEANT TO BE MARCH 2008. IT'S PROBABLY PRETTY REASONABLE THAT THE BATHROOMS CAN BE DONE BY MARCH 2008. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: SO THEN HERE'S THE ISSUE. THE BATHROOMS DON'T GET BUILT UNLESS YOU APPROVE THE TECHNIQUES COURSE WITH THE SHARED FACILITY LAB. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ARE YOU TELLING US THAT, OR YOU'RE ASKING US THAT? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: I'M TELLING YOU. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. THAT WASN'T NECESSARILY CLEAR TO ME WHEN I READ THE APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK THAT CODE'S GOING TO TAKE CARE OF THIS ISSUE. I THINK WE NEED TO FOCUS ON LARGER ISSUES. AND JUST ON A FUNCTIONAL BASIS, IF THEY DON'T GET THE TECHNIQUES COURSE, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PUT BATHROOMS ON THIS FLOOR. SO I THINK WE SHOULD JUST MOVE ON TO HIGHER LEVEL ISSUES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I AGREE WITH THAT, BOB. AGAIN, GOING BACK TO MY ORIGINAL COMMENTS, THAT THE BATHROOM ISSUE DID NOT JUMP OUT AT ME. I MUST HAVE SEEN IT ON THE PLANS, BUT, ANYWAY, A GREATER LEVEL OF DETAIL COULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED WITH THIS GRANT APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| SO ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS GRANT APPLICATION? | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I HAVE A QUESTION. IT LOOKS LIKE WE GET TEN PI'S WITH THIS PLAN AT A COST THAT'S QUITE HIGH COMPARED TO OTHERS. CAN SOMEBODY TALK ABOUT THAT? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I SAW THEIR DOCUMENTS THAT THEY SUBMITTED IN THEIR EXHIBITS FROM OTHER INSTITUTIONS COMMITTING TO PARTICIPATE WITH THEM IS MY RECOLLECTION OF THIS FILE. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: AGAIN, THIS IS THE ISSUE THAT WE DEALT WITH EARLIER THIS MORNING. AND WE ONLY IDENTIFIED THE HOST INSTITUTIONS, AND SO THEY ARE INDEED SAYING THAT THERE WILL BE NINE. SO NINE OR TEN. AND LATER IN PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW, WE'LL SHOW YOU HOW MANY CIRM-FUNDED PI'S ARE IN THERE AS WELL. AND, AGAIN, THE REASON THAT WE DIDN'T INCLUDE THE POTENTIAL USE AS A SHARED LAB BECAUSE IN MANY OF THESE APPLICATIONS IN THE REGIONAL AREAS, PI'S WERE COUNTED MORE THAN ONCE, IN FACT, MANY TIMES THE SAME PI'S. SO WE THOUGHT BEST TO JUST TALK ABOUT WHAT THE HOST INSTITUTION PLANS FOR CAPACITY. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AS A COMMENT TOO, BECAUSE DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONS HAVE DIFFERENT AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION, IN FACT, PI'S MAY SHARE FACILITIES IN MORE THAN ONE LOCATION BECAUSE THEY HAVE DIFFERENT EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE, BECAUSE THEY HAVE DIFFERENT EXPERTISE. SO IF THEY'RE DOING A COLLABORATIVE EXPERIMENT THAT NEEDS SPECIFIC EQUIPMENT, THEY MAY BE SHARING A LAB AT ONE LOCATION, AND ANOTHER EXPERIMENT THEY'RE WORKING ON, THEY NEED THE EXPERTISE AND EQUIPMENT FACILITIES THAT ARE AVAILABLE AT ANOTHER LOCATION. SO THEY MAY HAVE MORE THAN ONE LOCATION THAT THEY PARTICIPATE IN. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO EVALUATE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I AGREE WITH THAT, BOB. I THINK THAT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE FOR THE NEXT ROUND OF GRANTS WE'LL HAVE TO FLESH OUT SOME MEANINGFUL WAYS TO COMPARE THESE ISSUES. | ||||||||
| SO ARE THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: ONE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT. MY HUNCH IS THAT THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW WILL FLESH THAT OUT A BIT BECAUSE THIS IS ONE OF THOSE IN WHICH THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT MISSION IS VERY WELL INTEGRATED INTO THE RESEARCH MISSION AND THE END RESULT MISSION THAT WE'RE ALL ABOUT. AND MY HUNCH IS THAT, FOR ONE THING, IF THEY ARE DRIVING THAT IN THE WAY THAT IT APPEARS AND THAT I'M SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR WITH, THAT WILL FUNCTION AS A MAGNET TO BRING SCIENTISTS INTO THE SPACE IN A WAY IN WHICH SIMPLY THE AVAILABILITY OF A STEM CELL LAB WITHOUT THAT FOCUS MAY NOT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU, JOAN. SO, VICE CHAIR, IF YOU COULD PLEASE GIVE YOUR PERSPECTIVE AS THE SECONDARY REVIEWER ON THIS GRANT APPLICATION. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I HAD THE CHANCE TO TALK TO JOAN ABOUT THIS EARLIER TODAY, SO WE BOTH TOOK A LOOK AT THIS. MY COMMENTS, THOUGH, HAVE TO DO WITH THE -- I APOLOGIZE -- ACROSS THE BOARD I THOUGHT IN EVERY AREA THEY DID WELL. I DON'T HAVE MUCH. WE HAD A FULL SORT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS OTHER TOPIC, SO I DON'T WANT TO ADD TO IT. | ||||||||
| I KNOW. MY ISSUE IS SOMETHING THAT STAFF RAISED, AND I NEEDED SOME CLARITY AND DIRECTION ON IT HAVING TO DO WITH THE TECHNIQUES COURSE, AND THE 400 PLUS THOUSAND DOLLARS REQUESTED AND SORT OF WHAT TO DO WITH THAT. IT'S A BROADER POLICY QUESTION, AND I WASN'T SURE HOW TO HANDLE IT. I GUESS IF WE DECIDE TO FUND IT, THEN WE'RE FUNDING IT AT THAT 400,000. IS THAT JUST SORT OF -- | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK IT'S WORTH TALKING ABOUT THIS ISSUE. SO IF STAFF COULD FRAME THE ISSUE BECAUSE I'M ACTUALLY A LITTLE FUZZY ABOUT WHY EXACTLY IS THIS AN ISSUE AND WHAT IS THE PROBLEM ON THIS ISSUE, ON THE TECHNIQUES COURSE? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THE GENERAL INTENT OF THE TECHNIQUES COURSE TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION FUNDS AS WELL AS EQUIPMENT FUNDS WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS ENOUGH BENCH SPACE OR EQUIPMENT THAT WAS SPECIFIC FOR TRAINING. AND WHAT WE FOUND IN THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION WAS MORE OF A CLASSROOM-TYPE ATMOSPHERE. SO, IN FACT, THE REASON THAT WE BRING IT TO YOUR ATTENTION AND THAT IT IS TRULY JUST A POLICY ISSUE IS THAT THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL LAB SPACE BEING ADDED, BUT, IN FACT, THERE IS A $465,000 ONLY CONSTRUCTION COSTS,AND IT WILL BE FOR THE OTHER FACILITIES AS WELL THE MULTIPURPOSE ROOM. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. TRAINING AS IN DEFINED NOT IN TERMS OF MORE CLASSROOM TRAINING, MORE OF A -- | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: MANY OF THE TECHNIQUES COURSES INCLUDED AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT AND A SMALLER FACILITY FOR A CLASSROOM. SO I DON'T WANT TO SAY THAT THIS IS IN ANY WAY INELIGIBLE. OF COURSE, IT IS ELIGIBLE. I JUST WANTED EVERYONE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS, IN FACT, NO ADDITIONAL LAB SPACE OR SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WHEN I HAD READ THIS REVIEW EARLY ON, ACTUALLY I THOUGHT IT WOULD MAKE A GOOD TRAINING AREA, BUT OBVIOUSLY NOT IN TERMS OF LAB EQUIPMENT OR ANYTHING ALONG THOSE LINES, BUT, AGAIN, MORE CLASSROOM STYLE EXACTLY. SO I GUESS IS THIS SOMETHING, I THINK, WE CAN DEAL WITH IN THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: IT'S TECHNICAL. WE COULD. THAT'S FINE. SURE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW, DOES THE RFA, IS IT SPECIFIC ENOUGH IN TERMS OF THE STEM CELL TECHNIQUES COURSE EXACTLY WHAT THAT MEANS? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: JANET WRIGHT, THE CONSTRUCTION EXPERT, HAS A FLOOR PLAN THAT WE SHOULD TAKE A LOOK AT BECAUSE ON THE FLOOR PLAN SHE'S LOOKING AT, WE'RE SHOWING CELL CULTURE SPACE ON THIS FLOOR. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THAT'S RIGHT, JUST NOT IN THE TECHNIQUES COURSE, BUT THAT IS INDEED CORRECT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SO THEY'VE ADJOINED THE MULTIPURPOSE ROOM TO THE SHARED LAB SPACE. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: ABSOLUTELY. YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THE INTENT FOR THEM WOULD BE TO TAKE PEOPLE FROM THE CLASSROOM INTO THE SHARED LAB TO TEACH THEM IN THE SHARED LAB. IT ISN'T THAT THE TRAINEES WOULDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO A LAB. IT'S JUST THAT THEY'RE USING CONTIGUOUS SPACE. IT'S A DIFFERENT LAYOUT. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: ABSOLUTELY. IF I IN ANY WAY INDICATED THAT SOMEHOW THIS WASN'T VIABLE SPACE, AGAIN, IT'S NOT INELIGIBLE. IT JUST WASN'T CREATING ANY BENCH SPACE, IT WASN'T ANY NEW LAB SPACE, AND THERE IS NO REQUEST FOR SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT FOR TRAINING. SO ALL OF THAT HAS BEEN REQUESTED IN THE SHARED LAB REQUEST. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: DIFFERENT PEOPLE TOOK DIFFERENT TECHNIQUES, BUT THEY ARE PROVIDING BOTH THE LAB SPACE AND THE TEACHING SPACE. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: AND IT MAY BE THAT THERE'S A PROGRAMMATIC REASON FOR THAT BECAUSE THIS GROUP IS ONE WHICH IS EXPERT ALREADY IN THE TRANSLATION ASPECTS. THEY MIGHT WELL BE AN AUDIENCE FOR THAT THAT WAS MORE -- THAT WAS LESS -- THAT HAD MORE TO LEARN AND THEY HAD MORE TO TEACH, IF YOU WILL. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I AGREE WITH YOU, JOAN. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. SO I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE CAN HAVE A PRELIMINARY SCORE ON APPLICATION 501. AND THEN WE'LL TAKE A MOMENT, AND THEN I BELIEVE, I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE, THAT THIS WILL BE THE LAST APPLICATION, 522. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES. I COULD SAY NO, BUT IT WOULD BE UNPOPULAR. IT IS THE LAST. | ||||||||
| 522, RECUSALS ARE LANSING AND HOFFMAN. | ||||||||
| (MEMBER LANSING AND STAFF MEMBER HOFFMAN ARE RECUSED FROM APPLICATION 522 AND ARE NOT PRESENT IN THE ROOM.) | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THIS IS A PROPOSAL FOR A SHARED LAB AND A TECHNIQUES COURSE, AND THE IMPROVEMENTS RELATED TO THE COURSES ARE INCLUDED IN THE SHARED RESEARCH LABORATORY SPACE. IT'S A REQUEST FOR $2 MILLION, MILLION DOLLARS OF CIRM FUNDING FOR CONSTRUCTION, A MILLION DOLLARS FOR EQUIPMENT. THE PRIMARY REVIEWER IS CHAIR LICHTENGER AND SECONDARY REVIEWER MEMBER SAMUELSON. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: ARE THERE ANY TECHNICAL ISSUES ON THIS APPLICATION, RICK? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: DOUBLE-CHECK. NO, THERE'S NOT BECAUSE I THINK WE HAD ONE ISSUE, BUT IT WAS HANDLED BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THERE'S SUFFICIENT MATCH TO COVER THAT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAY HAVE MISPLACED IT, BUT I DON'T HAVE A STAFF ANALYSIS FOR 522. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'LL GIVE YOU MINE. I HAVE AN EXTRA ONE HERE IF YOU BEAR WITH ME ONE SECOND. HERE YOU GO. | ||||||||
| GIVE ME ONE MOMENT, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. SO THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD RENOVATE 5,000 ASSIGNABLE SQUARE FEET IN TWO EXISTING RESEARCH BUILDINGS TO EXPAND STEM CELL RESEARCH CENTER SPACE AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TISSUE CULTURE LAB SPACE, CELLULAR MOLECULAR BIOLOGY LAB SPACE, AND RENOVATE SPACE TO PROVIDE A SATELLITE STEM CELL LABORATORY AT THE INSTITUTION. | ||||||||
| YOU KNOW, THE PROJECT SEEMED QUITE FEASIBLE. THERE WERE NO MAJOR ISSUES I NOTED. I GAVE IT A FAIRLY HIGH FEASIBILITY SCORE. | ||||||||
| I ALSO THOUGHT THE COSTS SEEMED EXCELLENT COMPARED TO THE OTHER GRANT APPLICATIONS. THAT WAS $222 PER SQUARE FOOT, ASSIGNABLE PER SQUARE FOOT, WHICH I LIKE NUMBERS THAT START WITH TWOS OR ONES, SO I WAS VERY PLEASED ABOUT THAT. AND I THOUGHT THE SCHEDULE SEEMED SOMEWHAT AGGRESSIVE, SO, AGAIN, I WOULD SAY VERY GOOD TO EXCELLENT TIMELINES AND MILESTONES. | ||||||||
| IN TERMS OF THE MATCH, I THOUGHT THE MATCH WAS QUITE GOOD, VERY GOOD TO EXCELLENT, BECAUSE WE HAD 42 PERCENT OVERALL, WHICH IS OVER DOUBLE WHAT WAS REQUIRED. SO, AGAIN, I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY GOOD TO EXCELLENT. | ||||||||
| THE HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE SEEMED GOOD TO VERY GOOD. COSTS WERE UNDER BUDGET. COSTS WERE UNDER BUDGET, BUT SCHEDULE SLIPPED ON SOME OF THE PROJECTS, WHICH, AGAIN, IS KIND OF UNFORTUNATELY SOMEWHAT NORMAL, BUT COSTS WERE UNDER BUDGET. AND, AGAIN, I WOULD DEFINITELY PUT THEM IN A VERY GOOD CATEGORY IN TERMS OF THEIR HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE. | ||||||||
| AND OVERALL THE PROPOSAL SEEMED RESPONSIVE TO THE RFA. I GAVE IT A GOOD SCORE ON THAT. I THOUGHT IT WAS A WELL-DONE APPLICATION. THERE WERE NO -- ALL THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES WERE VERY GOOD AND ABOVE. SO, YOU KNOW, OVERALL I THOUGHT IT WAS AN EXCELLENT APPLICATION, AND I WOULD RECOMMEND IT FOR FUNDING. | ||||||||
| SO ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PRIMARY REVIEWER BEFORE WE GO TO THE SECONDARY REVIEWER? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WHAT DID YOU SAY THE TIMELINE WAS LIKE? WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO COMPLETE? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS ABOUT A TEN-MONTH SCHEDULE. SO MAY '08 BASED ON THE JULY START DATE. AGAIN, THAT SEEMED VERY GOOD TO EXCELLENT. AND SO EVERYTHING SEEMED GOOD ON THIS APPLICATION. I REALLY DIDN'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH IT. JOAN. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I TRACKED YOUR FINDINGS VERY CLOSELY. EXCELLENT MATCH UNDER COST. THE TIMELINE LOOKED GOOD. | ||||||||
| I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT VALUATION OF EQUIPMENT, WHETHER THERE ARE ISSUES ABOUT THAT AND WHETHER THE STRONG MATCH HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH -- IF THERE'RE DIFFERENT ACCOUNTING CHOICES THAT CAN BE MADE ABOUT EQUIPMENT. I'M JUST IGNORANT ABOUT THESE THINGS, AND MAYBE IT'S A VERY CLEAR SUBJECT, AND I DON'T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT IT. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I THINK I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. ON THE EQUIPMENT, WE'RE NOT MAKING A JUDGMENT ABOUT ITS NECESSITY IN TERMS OF THE PROGRAMMATIC. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: THE VALUE OF IT.MR. KELLER: THE VALUE TO SCIENCE, WE'RE NOT MAKING THAT JUDGMENT. WE'RE SIMPLY INDICATING AND RECEIVING THE INFORMATION WHERE THE INSTITUTION SAID WE'VE PREVIOUSLY PURCHASED THIS, AND UNDER THE RFA THEY CAN COUNT THAT. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: AND THEY TYPICALLY USE THE PURCHASE PRICE? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES. IN MOST CASES THEY'RE USING THE PURCHASE PRICE, AND THEN THERE ARE SOME -- WELL, WE ALLOWED THEM TO SIMPLY INDICATE ANYTHING PURCHASED AFTER '05, SO WE DIDN'T ASK FOR A DEPRECIATED COST ALLOCATION REQUIREMENT. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: DIDN'T WE ASK THEM TO STATE THE USEFUL LIFE? I THOUGHT WE DID. NOT THAT MANY, IF ANY, DID IT, BUT I THOUGHT THE RFA DID ASK FOR IT. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THEY WERE GETTING A HIGH PERCENTAGE FOR THE MATCH, INCLUDING EQUIPMENT, JOAN. I DID NOTICE THAT AS WELL. A MATCH IS A MATCH. AND I WOULD LEAVE THAT UP TO THE GRANTS ADMINISTRATION POLICY THAT THIS GROUP WILL BE WORKING ON TOMORROW TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ENSURE THAT IT'S DONE PROPERLY. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I HAVE A COMMENT THERE. I THINK DEBORAH HAS BROUGHT THIS UP A COUPLE OF TIMES, IN FACT, INCLUDING THE APPLICATION HERE, THAT WE HAVEN'T REALLY EFFECTIVELY DOWNGRADED ANYONE ON NOT GIVING US THE AMORTIZED REMAINING USEFUL LIFE OF THIS EQUIPMENT. SO WE CAN'T KIND OF START NOW. HOWEVER, GOING FORWARD, IT IS, I THINK, VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A TABLE OF ANY EQUIPMENT USED FOR MATCHES ON FUTURE TRANSACTIONS WHERE WE SHOW THE NET VALUE AMORTIZED, THE NET USEFUL LIFE REMAINING VALUE, AND COUNT THAT TOWARDS THE MATCH. SO YOU'RE NOT USING EQUIPMENT THAT IS -- YOU'RE COUNTING AT FULL VALUE. IN FACT, IT MAY BE AT SIGNIFICANTLY DEPRECIATED VALUE. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: RIGHT. THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION TOO. | ||||||||
| GOOD HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE. THAT'S ABOUT IT. | ||||||||
| GOOD HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE. THAT'S ABOUT IT. CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU, JOAN. ANY COMMENTS FROM THE WORKING GROUP? OKAY. SO THEN WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO ALLOW FOLKS FIVE TO TEN MINUTES TO REVIEW ALL THEIR FINAL SCORES AND MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENTS THAT THEY FEEL THEY NEED TO MAKE IN TERMS OF GOING BACK NOW ON SOME OF THE EARLIER PRELIMINARY SCORES THAT THEY'VE GIVEN. AND THEN WE WILL BE GOING -- AT THE END OF THAT, WE'LL BE GIVING OUR SCORES TO RICK. AND THEN WE'LL BE GOING TO A CLOSED SESSION AS CALLED FOR IN THE PROCEDURES. | ||||||||
| SO PLEASE REVIEW YOUR SCORING BOOKS AND MAKE ANY FINAL CHANGES. THE SCORING BOOKS WILL BE COLLECTED, AND THE COMPOSITE SCORES OF ONE TO A HUNDRED WILL BE CALCULATED AS AN AVERAGE OF THOSE WHO ARE ELIGIBLE AND SCORE THE APPLICATION. THE SCORES WILL BE AVAILABLE WHEN WE RETURN FROM CLOSED SESSION. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: SO IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT WE ARE -- THIS CONCLUDES ESSENTIALLY THE TECHNICAL ASPECT OF THE REVIEW OF THESE APPLICATIONS. WE ARE TO TURN THEM INTO STAFF. WE WILL THEN GO INTO CLOSED SESSION IN WHICH WE'LL GET A SCIENTIFIC REPORT FROM DR. CHIU AND HER STAFF; IS THAT RIGHT? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THAT'S CORRECT.VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: HOW LONG DO YOU WANT TO GIVE US TO DO THAT, SAY, TEN MINUTES? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: HOW LONG? I'M FLEXIBLE ON THIS ISSUE. MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS HOW MUCH TIME YOU NEED? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: WE CAN INCORPORATE IT INTO A STRETCH BREAK. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: MR. CHAIRMAN, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. WHEN WE LOOKED AT THIS, BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A NUMBER OF CATEGORIES THAT WE WANT TO RECORD FROM YOUR SCORE BOOKS AND SO FORTH, WE'RE GOING TO NEED A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME TO BASICALLY AGGREGATE THE SCORES. AS YOU CONSIDER THE SCHEDULE FOR THE REST OF YOUR DAY OR EVENING OR NIGHT, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE YOUR EXPECTATIONS ARE THAT WE'LL NEED ABOUT AN HOUR TO BASICALLY DO THAT SCORING AND DO A VERIFICATION OF IT AND THEN PREPARE THE GRAPHS THAT ARE TYPICALLY USED IN THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW THAT RELATE TO THAT. I WANTED YOU TO BE AWARE OF THAT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: HOW LONG DO WE ANTICIPATE THE CLOSED SESSIONS TO TAKE? | ||||||||
| DR. CHIU: LESS THAN HALF AN HOUR. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: OKAY. SO I JUST -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THERE MAY BE SOME DISCUSSION. YOU MIGHT WANT TO ALLOW MORE TIME THAN THAT. IT MIGHT BE 45. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IT'S TEN AFTER FIVE NOW. SO IF WE ALLOW, LET'S SAY, 15 MINUTES TO FINALIZE OUR SCORES AND TAKE A BREAK. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: RICK, IF WE WERE TO GIVE THESE TO YOU IN NEXT FIVE MINUTES, I KNOW PEOPLE WANT TO DO FIVE TO TEN MINUTES, WOULD YOU HAVE THE GRAPHS AND WHATNOT READY BY 6:30 P.M.? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: WOULD THAT BE A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF TIME? I KNOW YOU WANT TO VERIFY AND LOOK AT IT AND TWEAK IT AND ALL THAT SORT OF STUFF. THAT SEEMS REASONABLE TO ME. AT 6:30 P.M. THIS EVENING, WE COULD, IF THIS COMMITTEE WANTS TO, PROCEED WITH THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW; IS THAT RIGHT? IS THE COMMITTEE UP TO THAT? I AM. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YEAH. I GUESS THE REAL QUESTION IS -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: BETWEEN NOW AND 6:30 P.M., WE CAN GO INTO CLOSED SESSION. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: WHEN IS DINNER? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I WAS JUST GOING TO COMMENT ON THAT. I DON'T KNOW. ARE WE -- I KNOW I GAVE EVERYONE A REAL LUNCH, BUT WHAT ABOUT A WORKING DINNER? IS THERE ANY REASON WE WOULDN'T WANT IT? I WOULD PROPOSE, AGAIN I'M TOTALLY FLEXIBLE ON THIS ISSUE, THAT WE TAKE FIVE OR TEN MINUTES TO COMPLETE OUR SCORING. WE RECONVENE IN 20 MINUTES TO START THE TECHNICAL CLOSED SESSION. AND THEN DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS IS GOING TO WORK FOR THE ENTIRE COMMITTEE MEMBERS. LET ME THROW ANOTHER PROPOSAL OUT THERE. IF IT'S A BAD IDEA, JUST IT'S A BAD IDEA. BUT IS DINNER READY NOW? WHEN WILL DINNER BE READY? MAYBE WE RESUME AT SEVEN. I GUESS WE CAN GO INTO CLOSED SESSION NOW, HAVE DINNER AT SIX, AND RESUME FOR PROGRAMMATIC AT SEVEN OR 6:45 OR SOMETHING. DOES THAT WORK? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THAT WORKS. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: WELL, THIS MAY BE ONE OF THOSE MOMENTS WHEN WE DON'T HAVE TO HIT THE ACCELERATOR AS HARD AS WE CAN EVERY SPLIT SECOND, AND THERE'S A BENEFIT TO FEELING RESTED FOR THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW AND HAVING SOME DOWNTIME TO PREPARE FOR IT, TO GET OUR PHONE CALLS OUT OF THE WAY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO WE NEED -- CAN WE HAVE COMMENTS FROM OTHER MEMBERS? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: JUST BEING RESPONSIVE TO EVERYONE, I THINK IF WE RECONVENED, AS JEFF INDICATED, AT SEVEN, THE QUESTION -- AS DAVID SUGGESTED, AT SEVEN, AT 7 O'CLOCK, DAVID, IF WE RECONVENED AT THAT TIME, DOES THAT GIVE US ENOUGH TIME TO EAT AND HAVE THE CLOSED SESSION? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I MEAN, ARLENE, HOW LONG DO YOU THINK WE NEED FOR SOME DISCUSSION? NO DISCUSSION. OKAY. SO IT SHOULD BE PRETTY SHORT. WHY DON'T WE DO THIS. WHY DON'T WE GO WITH DAVID'S SUGGESTION. WHY DON'T WE GO -- LET'S TAKE 20 MINUTES NOW TO FINALIZE OUR SCORES, TAKE A BREAK, AND THEN WE'LL MEET WITH ARLENE HERE. THEN WE'LL DO THE CLOSED SESSION. THEN WE'LL TAKE A BREAK AND RECONVENE AT 7 O'CLOCK, AND THAT SHOULD GIVE EVERYBODY ROUGHLY 45 MINUTES OR SO. MAYBE 7:15, WOULD THAT MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPIER? SO LET'S JUST KEEP IT AT SEVEN. LET'S GO WITH THAT. SO LET'S JUST TAKE 20 MINUTES NOW TOFINALIZE THE SCORES, TAKE A BREAK, AND THEN -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I THINK WE SHOULD POLL ALL THE MEMBERS. IF JOAN'S NOT FOR IT, PEOPLE SHOULD JUST SAY WHAT THEY WANT TO SAY. IF JEFF CAN'T MAKE IT, IF ED'S GOT TO GO, THEN WE NEED TO MAKE A DECISION BASED ON ALL THE FACTS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'M OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I CAN RECONVENE AT 7:45. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: WOULD YOU MIND IF WE RECONVENED AT 7:15? | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: NOT AT ALL, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO BE HERE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THE EARLIEST YOU CAN BE BACK IS 7:45. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I GUESS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A DAY THAT STARTED FOR SOME OF US AT SEVEN. IT SEEMS A LITTLE MARATHON. I'M NOT COMPLETELY SURE WHAT ALL WE NEED TO DO TOMORROW AND HOW LONG WE'RE PLANNING TO BE AT IT TOMORROW. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: RICK, JEFF IS BRINGING UP THE POINT. HE WANTS TO KNOW WHAT WE HAVE -- IF WE -- I GUESS, JEFFREY, YOU'RE PROPOSING THAT WE PUSH OFF THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW TILL TOMORROW? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY REASON WHY IT WOULD -- IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT WOULD HURT TO GET THE REPORT FROM THE SCIENCE FOLKS. I JUST -- YOU KNOW, IF WE GET OUT OF HERE AT 9 O'CLOCK, THAT'S A PRETTY LONG DAY. I WOULDN'T MIND WORKING THROUGH DINNER. IT'S HARD TO, LIKE, HAVE DINNER, TAKE AN HOUR OUT FOR DINNER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK -- | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE IF WE WORKED THROUGH DINNER BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE I CAN GET HOME BY NINE, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO SEE MY KID TODAY. I DON'T WANT TO BELABOR THAT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'M OKAY WORKING THROUGH DINNER. HOW DO THE OTHER MEMBERS FEEL? JOAN, ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: YEAH. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WHY DON'T WE DO THAT. LET'S JUST TAKE THE 20 MINUTES NOW TO FINALIZE THE SCORES. THEN WE'LL RECONVENE FOR THE SCIENTIFIC CLOSED SESSION, AND THEN WE WILL HAVE A WORKING DINNER, AND WE'LL GO UNTIL PEOPLE START TO BURN OUT. HOW DOES THAT SOUND, BUT NO LATER THAN WE'LL GO A COUPLE HOURS. HOW IS THAT, INCLUDING DINNER? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: PROGRAMMATIC MIGHT NOT BE THAT ONEROUS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO THERE YOU GO. SO I THINK WE'VE GOT CONSENSUS THAT WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THE 20 MINUTES FOR SCORING AND A BREAK, WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO THE CLOSED SESSION 20 MINUTES FROM NOW, WHICH IS ABOUT 5:35. THEN WE'LL FINISH THAT UP, AND THEN WE'LL GO INTO A WORKING DINNER FOR THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW. | ||||||||
| (A DISCUSSION WAS HAD OFF THE RECORD.) | ||||||||
| (A RECESS WAS THEN TAKEN.) | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: WE'LL RECONVENE THE MEETING OF THE FACILITIES WORKING GROUP. MY NAME IS DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL, THE VICE CHAIR. WE'RE NOW GOING TO COMMENCE THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW OF THE APPLICATIONS. AGAIN, I THINK WE ALL WANT TO THANK DAVID LICHTENGER FOR DOING SUCH A GREAT JOB, CONTINUE THAT MOMENTUM. | ||||||||
| I WANT TO START WITH -- WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE TABULATIONS JUST YET. THAT IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. BUT AS A PRECURSOR, IF YOU WILL, THERE IS SOME INFORMATION THAT MR. KELLER WILL SHARE WITH THE WORKING GROUP THAT CAN GIVE US SORT OF A FLAVOR AND A CONTEXT OF WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH IN AIDING US WITH THE PROGRAMMATIC PIECE OF THIS REVIEW. MR. KELLER. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THANK YOU. WHAT YOU HAVE HERE IS A SERIES OF SLIDES THAT I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THAT ARE ACTUALLY JUST KIND OF SPREADSHEETS THAT I INTENDED TO MAYBE TRY TO ADJUST AS WE GOT MORE INFORMATION, BUT IT TRIES TO DEAL WITH TWO THINGS. ONE IS KIND OF THE GROWTH ISSUE OF HOW DOES CIRM AND HOW YOU MAKE DECISIONS RELATIVE TO SOME OF THESE SHARED LABS AS IT RELATES TO WHAT PEOPLE HAVE PERCEIVED AS GROWTH IN THE APPLICATION. SECONDLY, WHERE IS THE GROWTH? WHERE IS IT OCCURRING SO THAT YOU CAN MAKE SOME JUDGMENTS ABOUT COMPETING OR VALUE OF THE DOLLARS THAT YOU ARE PUTTING INTO THE SHARED LABS. | ||||||||
| BEFORE I START, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S UNDERSTOOD THAT THE INFORMATION THAT I'M GOING TO BE PRESENTING IS PRESENTING IN THE BODY OF 22 APPLICATIONS, AND I BELIEVE THAT THERE'S NO NEED FOR ANY RECUSALS, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE'S ANY NEED FOR ANY MOTIONS OR ACTIONS. THIS IS PURELY BACKGROUND FOR YOU GO INTO AND DISCUSS THE MORE PRECISE RANKING AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW. | ||||||||
| FIRST OFF, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTOOD KIND OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CIRM GRANTS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED OR OUT THE DOOR AND WHAT THE NUMBER OF HOST PI'S THAT WERE ACTUALLY CALLED OUT IN THE APPLICATIONS. AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY VARY CONSIDERABLY FROM ONE CASE OF 47 PERCENT INCREASE OF -- WHEN I SAY CIRM GRANTS, I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT NUMBER IS. IT'S THE SEED GRANTS, THE TRAINING GRANTS, AND THE COMPREHENSIVE GRANTS, AND IT INCLUDES TIER 1 AND TIER 2, MEANING THAT HAD THERE BEEN FUNDS AVAILABLE IN TIER 2, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FUNDED. SO WE CROSS-REFERENCED BASICALLY THOSE INSTITUTIONS THAT HAD A SHARED LAB PROPOSAL AND HAD CIRM GRANTS UNDER THE BELT OR APPROVED. IN SOME CASES THERE ARE GRANTS THAT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND PEOPLE DID NOT PROPOSE A SHARED LAB. | ||||||||
| SO WE HAVE 133 ON THAT LIST, AND THE HOST PI'S WAS 383, SO YOU SEE AN INCREASE. IF ALL OF THEIR PLANS COME TO FRUITION, THERE WOULD BE 250 MORE PI'S IN THIS. YOU CAN SEE THE RANGE OF INCREASE FROM 47 PERCENT TO A THOUSAND PERCENT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WHAT DOES INCREASE MEAN? YOU MEAN THE LABS WE'RE PROJECTING WOULD ALLOW THEM TO INCREASE BY THIS AMOUNT, OR THEY PLEDGE TO INCREASE? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: IT SIMPLY IS THE ARITHMETIC DIFFERENCE EXPRESSED AS A PERCENT OF WHAT THEY PUT DOWN. FOR INSTANCE, ON 508, FOR INSTANCE, THEY HAVE THREE GRANTS, THEIR HOST PI'S IS 12, THERE'S AN INCREASE OF NINE, WHICH IS A 300-PERCENT INCREASE OVER THE CIRM GRANTS THAT THEY'VE RECEIVED. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: INCREASE MEANS THERE'S 300 PERCENT MORE PI'S THAN THE -- | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THAN THE BASE. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: DOES THAT MEAN IF THEY RECEIVE FUNDING FROM THE SHARED LABS? NO. ONE MORE TIME. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: IT SIMPLY MEANS THAT IT WAS -- I'M NOT DOING THIS VERY WELL. I APOLOGIZE. WE WERE CONCERNED THAT A LOT OF THE PROPOSALS INCLUDED PI'S THAT WERE NOT YET FULLY ENGAGED IN STEM CELL RESEARCH. AND SO WE TRIED TO DO SOME MEASUREMENT THAT WAS MORE OF A BASIS OF REALLY TRUTHING THE NOTION OF WHAT KIND OF ACTIVITY EXISTS IN THE PARTICULAR AREAS OF THE STATE AND THE PARTICULAR INSTITUTIONS. WE CHOSE TO USE THE CIRM GRANT, AND I JUST THOUGHT IT WAS KIND OF INTERESTING TO SAY, OH, WELL, AND THE QUESTION WAS POSED, WELL, HOW DO THOSE GRANTS COMPARE TO WHAT THE APPLICANT SAID THEY EXPECT TO HAVE IF THEY GET A SHARED LAB? | ||||||||
| NOW, WE'RE NOT FUNDING THE RESEARCHERS IN THE SHARED LAB PROPOSAL. WE'RE FUNDING THE OPERATION OF THE LAB AND SO FORTH. SO YOU COULD ARGUE THAT A NUMBER OF THOSE ARE SPECULATIVE ABOUT GROWTH IN THEIR PROGRAM, NEW BUDGET CAPABILITIES, OR REDIRECTION OR WHATEVER, BUT THIS JUST GIVES YOU THE RANGE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S A MEASURE OF THE ACTUAL PERFORMANCE OF THE PI'S AS VERSUS THE CLAIMS THAT THEY'RE ALL PERFORMING BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEIR PERFORMANCE LEVELS. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WELL PUT, YES. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: RICK, DOES THIS REMEDY THE ISSUE THAT I THINK LORI RAISED EARLIER, WHICH IS THAT THERE WAS SOME DISCREPANCIES ON COUNTING PI'S, DOUBLE COUNTING PI'S? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THAT'S RIGHT. WE'RE TRYING TO MOVE THIS MORE TO A DISCRETE SET OF NUMBERS, WHICH WE KNOW HOW MANY CIRM GRANTS THERE ARE. WE KNOW WHO GOT THEM. SO WE'RE USING THAT NUMBER. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: RIGHT. BUT THIS DOESN'T ADDRESS THE PI'S THAT THEY CLAIM ARE PREPARED TO SHARE WITH THEM. IT DOESN'T ADDRESS -- SO ONE INSTITUTION MAY HAVE FOUR LETTERS IN THE FILE ABOUT INSTITUTIONS THAT INTEND TO SHARE THEIR FACILITIES. IN THE CASE OF A PARTICULAR INSTITUTION THAT HAS A REAL IMPORTANT SPECIALIZATION, LIKE HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING, THAT MAY, IN FACT, IN A SHARED LAB BE HIGHLY UTILIZED BECAUSE THEY HAVE A UNIQUE EXCELLENCE IN THE AREA. AND THIS DOESN'T ALLOW US TO EVALUATE THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THAT'S CORRECT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THIS IS A VERY SORT OF DISCRETE SNAPSHOT. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: RIGHT. AND I APOLOGIZE IF I CAN'T GET THIS A LITTLE LARGER. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: CAN YOU PROVIDE A COPY OF THAT CHART TO US? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: CERTAINLY I CAN. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: GREAT. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE GOOD JUST TO TAKE THOSE TWO NUMBERS THAT WERE ON THE PREVIOUS CHART AND SHOW HOW THEY DISTRIBUTE ON THE BASIS OF AREAS OF THE STATE. AND FOR SIMPLICITY PURPOSES, WE'RE SAYING THAT THERE'S AN AREA TO THE FAR LEFT, SAN DIEGO, SAN FRANCISCO NEXT, AND THEN THE THIRD GROUP IS LOS ANGELES AREA, CONSISTENT WITH THE GROUPING THAT WE DID ON THE GRANTS, AND THEN IRVINE, DAVIS, RIVERSIDE, SANTA BARBARA, SANTA CRUZ. SO IT'S JUST ANOTHER DISPLAY OF THE DATA THAT WAS IN THE PRIOR TABLE, AND RATHER THAN PERCENTAGE, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE HOW MUCH IS NEW GROWTH VERSUS BASICALLY THE PI'S THAT ARE IN PLACE OR HAVE RECEIVED SOME CIRM FUNDING. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: RICK, THIS IS JUST TO BE -- THERE'S A PURPLE BAR AND THEN THERE'S SORT OF A YELLOW BAR; IS THAT RIGHT? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: RIGHT. SO THE PURPLE BAR, THIS IS HOW MANY CIRM-FUNDED PI'S AND GRANTS ARE AT THAT. SO SEVEN VERSUS, LET'S SAY, ABOUT 18 AS THE APPLICANT'S NUMBER OF PI'S AT THE INSTITUTION AND SO FORTH ALL THE WAY ACROSS. SO CIRM GRANT, AGAIN, VALUE IS 14, WHICH IS THE GRANTS IN TIER 1 AND 2, AND THEN THE HIGHER ONE IS THE 19 THAT WERE CITED IN THEIR SHARED LAB PROPOSAL AS INSTITUTIONAL-BASED PI'S. SO, AGAIN, A COMPARISON OF THOSE TWO.MR. SHEEHY: I'M STILL HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING THIS. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. SO ARE YOU SUGGESTING THERE'S NOT AS MANY PI'S AS THEY'RE PUTTING ON THEIR APPLICATIONS? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I'M SUGGESTING THE NUMBER -- YES. I'M SAYING THERE ARE ASPIRATIONS IN TERMS OF HOW MANY PI'S THEY EXPECT TO BE ENGAGED. WE WERE TRYING TO GIVE YOU A MEASUREMENT THAT WOULD LOOK AT THAT AND SAY WHAT'S A GOOD INDICATION OF WHAT REALLY EXISTS IN TERMS OF THE CAPABILITY AT THAT INSTITUTION. THE PURPLE BARS, BECAUSE IT'S 133 GRANTS, AS I MENTIONED, IN THE UNIVERSE OF GRANTS AND TIER 1 AND TIER 2 GRANTS AS AN INDICATION. YOU CAN ACCEPT IT OR REJECT IT. I'M JUST SAYING THAT THAT IS A MEASUREMENT THAT WE THOUGHT WAS IMPORTANT. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THAT IT BECOMES A RELEVANT NUMBER TILL YOU -- WE'RE ONLY FUNDING TO ABOUT ROUGHLY THE 30-PERCENT PAYLINE. SO WE'RE ONLY FUNDING ONE OUT OF THREE PI'S TO BEGIN WITH. SO AN INSTITUTION, AS LONG AS -- THAT'S WHERE I KIND OF -- IF WE WERE FUNDING EVERYBODY WHO WAS A PI AT AN INSTITUTION WHO HAD APPLIED FOR A GRANT FOR CIRM, THEN THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE AS A RELEVANT METRIC. | ||||||||
| BUT GIVEN THAT WE'RE ONLY FUNDING ABOUT -- IN THE TWO PURE SCIENCE ROUNDS THAT WE'VE DONE, WE'VE ONLY FUNDED TO ABOUT THE 30-PERCENT PAYLINE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THESE ARE FUNDED IN THE SECOND TIER. THERE'S NOT A LOT OF THOSE, BUT I THINK YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN, BUT YOU WOULD EXPECT, IF 30 PERCENT, THEN THERE WOULD BE PROPORTIONALITY. I'M JUST SAYING LOOK AT THE VARIATION BETWEEN SOME, AS I MENTIONED, 47-PERCENT INCREASE. | ||||||||
| DR. CHIU: MAY I MAKE A STAB AT A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT WAY? I MAY NOT BE CORRECT. IF I LOOKED AT THIS, THE YELLOW BARS PROBABLY I WOULD ASSUME ARE THE NUMBER OF PI USERS THAT ARE PROPOSED BY THAT LAB IN THE APPLICATION. WHEREAS, THE PURPLE BAR I WOULD TAKE AS A REALITY CHECK BASED ON DATA WE HAVE, WHICH IS HOW MANY TIER 1 AND 2 TOTAL ARE FROM THAT INSTITUTION. SO THAT IS REAL DATA THAT WE HAVE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THE PURPLE BAR IS THE CIRM TRAINING GRANTS, SEED, AND COMPREHENSIVE? | ||||||||
| DR. CHIU: TIER 1 AND 2; IS THAT CORRECT, RICK? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT'S THE PURPLE BAR. | ||||||||
| DR. CHIU: THAT'S THE PURPLE BAR CUMULATIVE. THAT GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF HOW MANY HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL FOLKS ARE THERE THAT ARE AT LEAST TIER 2 QUALITY. AND THEN THE GOLD BAR IS WHAT THEY THINK THEY HAVE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: TWO THINGS. ONE IS ONE OF THE INHERENT ISSUES OF COMBINING COMPREHENSIVE GRANTS WITH SEED GRANTS IS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE GRANTS THERE MAY BE 12 DIFFERENT SCIENTISTS INVOLVED. SO THE UTILIZATION RATE ON SCIENTISTS THAT ARE REPRESENTED THROUGH A COMPREHENSIVE GRANT MAY REPRESENT A MUCH LARGER LEVEL OF SCIENTIST INVOLVEMENT THAN A SEED GRANT. SO MIXING THEM TOGETHER, I FIND, IS A MIXED INFORMATION; BUT ON A MACRO LEVEL, IT'S PROBABLY USEFUL TO SHOW US WHERE THE PRODUCTIVITY IS. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THAT'S RIGHT. I ADMITTED TO BLUNT INSTRUMENT HERE, AND WE COULD HAVE USED DOLLARS, BUT THEN OVERHEAD CREEPS IN AND OTHER VARIATIONS. WE COULD HAVE USED GRANT YEARS BECAUSE SOME GRANTS ARE FOUR, SOME ARE TWO, BUT THE IDEA WAS TO KEEP IT SIMPLE HERE AND JUST SAY THIS IS HOW MANY GRANTS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ON THIS PARTICULAR GRAPH? SEEING NONE, YOU CAN MOVE TO THE NEXT ONE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I'LL TRY TO, AGAIN, MAKE THIS MORE LEGIBLE. SO I THOUGHT -- THIS IS JUST KIND OF INFORMATION JUST IN FURTHERANCE OF THE PURPLE BARS, HOW MANY OF THOSE WERE ACTUAL GRANTS. THEN HOW MANY WERE TIER 2 GRANTS THAT WERE NOT FUNDED BECAUSE FUNDS WERE NOT AVAILABLE. AND IT'S INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT IT'S JUST, AGAIN, COROLLARY. THAT WAS THE ONLY POINT IN SHOWING YOU THIS IS THAT THE NUMBERS WERE PRETTY CONSISTENT BETWEEN THE TIER 1 ADDS AND THE TIER 1 -- I'M SORRY -- THE TIER 2 ADDS AND THE TIER 1S. SO IT'S TRYING TO GIVE YOU SOME COMFORT LEVEL WITH THAT PROCESS. | ||||||||
| SO IF WE KNOW WHAT THE GRANTS ARE, WE'RE TRYING TO NOW UNDERSTAND WHAT ARE THE REGIONAL ISSUES. SO I'M GOING TO SETTLE ON THE TIER 1 AND TIER 2 GRANTS AS BEING KIND OF A METRIC FOR US. AND HOW DOES THAT STACK UP AGAINST THE SHARED RESEARCH LABORATORIES? SO IN THIS GRAPH I'M SIMPLY TAKING -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: WHY DON'T YOU BUMP THAT UP TO, SAY, 80 PERCENT? IS THAT A HUNDRED? IS THAT THE WHOLE GRAPH? PERFECT. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WHAT WE'RE SAYING HERE IS THAT WITHIN THOSE THREE METROPOLITAN AREAS THAT I MENTIONED, SAN DIEGO, SAN FRANCISCO, AND LOS ANGELES, AND THEN THOSE THAT HAVE MULTIPLE INSTITUTIONS ATTACHED TO THEM. WHAT WE DID IS WE TOOK THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THE CIRM, THAT IS, THE AMOUNT THAT'S BEING FUNDED BY CIRM, IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THE SHARED LAB AND DIVIDED BY THE NUMBER OF PI'S OR GRANTS THAT CIRM HAS ISSUED OR GRANTED FOR THOSE. SO THAT'S GOING BACK TO THE PURPLE BAR. SO THIS WAS TRYING TO LEAD UP TO THIS GRAPH, IF YOU WILL. | ||||||||
| AND SO ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING IT IS FOR -- SO THERE'S TWO -- I HAVE TO GET THIS DOWN TO ONE PIECE. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: IS THIS GETTING BACK TO THIS COLUMN ON YOUR SYNOPSIS CHART OF THE COST PER PI? NO. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: IT IS, BUT THIS IS A DIFFERENT UNIVERSE BECAUSE WHAT PEOPLE WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT WAS USING THAT -- THE FIRST CHART WAS TRYING TO EXPLAIN THAT THAT'S PROBABLY NOT A GOOD INDICATOR, THAT IT WOULD BE BETTER TO USE -- AND WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT AT THE BEGINNING BECAUSE WE HAVE NOW APPROVED SO MANY GRANTS. SO IT WAS INTENDED TO GIVE YOU A COMFORT LEVEL THAT IT'S A BETTER INDICATION. SO -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I REALLY FEEL LIKE I'M GETTING INTO YOUR HEAD, MR. KELLER. THIS IS INTERESTING. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YOU WANT ME TO CONTINUE? LET ME JUST EXPLAIN WHAT THE BLUE BAR MEANS, AND MAYBE IT WILL MAKE GOOD SENSE TO YOU. FOR THESE FOUR APPLICANTS, WHEN YOU CONSIDER HOW MANY CIRM GRANTS THERE WERE, THE AVERAGE COST FOR THE SHARED LAB WAS ABOUT 200,000 PER -- 216,000 PER PI. SO YOU HAVE RELATIVE -- THE LOWER THE BAR, THE MORE EFFICIENCY. IN GOING BACK TO COMMENTS ABOUT ECONOMY OF SCALE BEING IN PLAY HERE, IT'S CLEAR THAT AMONG THESE FOUR, THEY ALL HAVE FAIRLY -- THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT CIRM IS BEING ASKED TO INVEST IN SHARED LABS WILL GIVE RISE OR BE OUT -- WHEN ONE CONSIDERS HOW MANY GRANTS CIRM HAS APPROVED IN THOSE FOUR LOCATIONS WITHIN SAN DIEGO, THAT IT IS ALMOST VERY CLOSE IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF FUNDS. | ||||||||
| NOW, THE POINT OF THIS AND THE SCALE OF THIS IS THAT IN SOME CASES THERE ARE SO FEW CIRM GRANTS, THAT WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE COST OF THE SHARED LAB, AND YOU'RE ONLY DIVIDING BY A VERY FEW NUMBER OF RESEARCH GRANTS APPROVED BY CIRM, THEN YOU START GETTING A NUMBER SUCH AS A MILLION DOLLARS AMONG THIS SAN FRANCISCO ENTITY. AND THEN AS YOU CAN SEE, THE SMALLER ONES, IRVINE, DAVIS, RIVERSIDE, SANTA BARBARA, THESE ARE SINGLE INSTITUTIONS, AND THE FEWER -- SO WHAT I WANTED TO DO IS SUPERIMPOSE ON THIS SO YOU CAN SEE IT THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF -- MAYBE THIS ONE WILL EXPLAIN IT A BIT. SO IN SAN DIEGO, IF WE AGGREGATE ALL OF SAN DIEGO, THERE ARE 34. USING THE RIGHT AXIS, THE DIAMONDS ARE HOW MANY CIRM GRANTS THERE ARE, AND THEN THE BAR REPRESENTS THE ACTUAL SHARED LAB COST PER GRANT OR PER PI. SO THE AMOUNT WE'RE SPENDING IN AGGREGATE IN SAN DIEGO PER SHARED LAB IS DIVIDED BY 34. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WAIT A MINUTE. THIS DOESN'T -- THIS DOESN'T RECONCILE FOR ME. BECAUSE THE SHARED LABS IS AN INVESTMENT OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS. YOU'RE JUST LOOKING AT A POINT IN TIME. AND WE PUT OUT A VERY LIMITED NUMBER OF GRANT APPLICATIONS, SO WE MAY NOT HAVE PUT OUT APPLICATIONS THAT HAPPEN TO FIT INTO THE RANGE THAT THOSE SPECIFIC PI'S HAVE EXPERTISE AND COULD COMPETE. SO I DON'T THINK THIS IS REALLY A RELEVANT INDICATOR. IT'S LOOKING AT TOO SMALL A SAMPLE AND TOO SHORT A TIME PERIOD. | ||||||||
| IF YOU LOOKED OUT OVER FOUR YEARS OR FIVE YEARS, I THINK YOU COULD DO THAT. I ACTUALLY THINK THAT YOUR COST PER PI AT AN INSTITUTION IS MORE RELEVANT, AND SOME KIND OF A SAMPLING OR A PERCENTAGE OF THE PI'S IN AN AREA THAT COULD BENEFIT WOULD BE RELEVANT, BUT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH DATA TO MAKE THIS KIND OF AN ASSERTION, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE THE VALUE OF THAT LAB IS OVER, YOU KNOW, FIVE OR SIX OR SEVEN YEARS. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: IN FACT, IT'S A FIELD IN WHICH OUR OBJECTIVE IS IF WE BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME, RIGHT? OUR OBJECTIVE IS TO GROW SIGNIFICANTLY FROM WHERE WE ARE NOW. SO TO HAVE THAT SORT OF RATIO IS FINE. AND THAT'S ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT -- YOU TAKE THE MOST EXPENSIVE OPERATION IN ANY OF THESE AND EXTRAPOLATE OUT THAT IT REMAINS THAT EXPENSIVE, IF ANY OF THE MOST EXPENSIVE DEVELOPED, LET'S SAY, ONE EFFECTIVE TREATMENT FOR PARKINSON'S DISEASE OR CYSTIC FIBROSIS, NOBODY IS GOING TO CARE A WHIT. SO I'M NOT SURE -- | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I COULD JUST COMMENT. I'M NOT TRYING TO TELL YOU HOW TO WEIGH THIS INFORMATION IN YOUR DECISIONS RELATIVE TO THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW. I REVIEWED THE TRANSCRIPT FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS, AND THERE WAS DEFINITELY AN INDICATION THAT PART OF THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW FOR THESE SHARED LABS SHOULD BE A CONSIDERATION OF GEOGRAPHY. I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID ABOUT WHAT WOULD BE A BETTER MEASURE IN TERMS OF A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME. IF WE HAD THAT DATA, IF WE ARE ABLE TO BE CLAIRVOYANT, WE COULD BE EVEN MORE PRECISE IN HERE. I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT THIS LEADS YOU TO ANY PARTICULAR DECISION ABOUT ANY PARTICULAR GRANT. I'M TRYING TO RESPOND TO THE NOTION THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENCES. | ||||||||
| SO, FOR INSTANCE, ON THIS CHART I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE IS THAT WHILE THERE ARE THREE MAJOR AREAS THAT WE'VE CITED HERE IN SAN DIEGO, SAN FRANCISCO, AND LOS ANGELES, AND YOU WOULD EXPECT THAT ECONOMY OF SCALE BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THERE'S 51 CIRM GRANTS THAT HAVE LANDED IN THE BAY AREA AND THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING PROPOSED IN AGGREGATE FOR SHARED LABS AVERAGES $200,000, YOU WOULD EXPECT THAT TO BE THE BEST VALUE. AND THIS IS STRICTLY A FINANCIAL. | ||||||||
| AND I AGREE WITH THE CHAIRMAN IN HIS COMMENTS ABOUT YOU COULD CERTAINLY MISS OPPORTUNITIES IF YOU JUST MAKE DECISIONS ON FINANCES. HOWEVER, I THINK WHAT IT REVEALS IS THAT IN THIS CASE IRVINE, WHICH HAS 14, WHICH IS A MUCH SMALLER PORTION OF THESE EARLY GRANTS, THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAINTAIN, AND IT'S A SINGLE SITE, THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAINTAIN THE COST PER PI AT A MUCH LOWER LEVEL THAN EVEN THESE GROUPINGS OF THREE APPLICANTS IN THESE CITIES. | ||||||||
| I THINK WHAT YOU TAKE AWAY FROM THIS -- I THINK THE ONLY THING YOU CAN SEE HERE IS THAT IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS THAT THE MORE GRANTS YOU HAVE, THE MORE LIKELY YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOW COST PER PI FOR THE SHARED LABS. AND THIS IS THE STATEWIDE AVERAGE. I LEAVE IT AT THAT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THE INFORMATION IS VERY HELPFUL, MR. KELLER. DAVID, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I JUST WANT TO MENTION I AGREE WITH BOB, BUT IT IS ONE ANALYTIC TOOL TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT ALL THE OTHER TOOLS. I JUST WANT TO SAY IT'S NOT THE ONLY ONE, BUT IT IS ONE OF MULTIPLE THINGS THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER. THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS TO THIS GRAPH? WE'LL GO TO MARCY, THEN BOB. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: IT DOES GIVE US A GEOGRAPHICAL -- STARTS TO GIVE US A GEOGRAPHICAL PERCEPTION OF HOW CIRM FUNDING IS STARTING TO AFFECT IN THE DIFFERENT GEOGRAPHIES, SO I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE THAT WAS A TOPIC OF CONVERSATION AT THE LAST MEETING. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: BOB. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IT DOES SHOW US THAT IRVINE IS HIGHLY PRODUCTIVE AS AN EARLY INDICATOR ON A COST BASIS. SO THERE'S INFORMATION THERE. IT'S JUST NOT DETERMINATIVE LONG TERM, BUT THERE'S SOME GOOD EARLY INDICATOR. AS MARCY JUST SAID, IT DOES TELL US, LOOK, YOU REALLY HAVE FOUR FAIRLY ESTABLISHED AREAS IN COUNTING IRVINE, AND THEN YOU HAVE SOME DEVELOPING CAPACITY IN DAVIS, SANTA CRUZ, RIVERSIDE, AND SANTA BARBARA. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: TOTALLY. VERY HELPFUL. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THAT'S AS MUCH AS I REALLY THOUGHT YOU WOULD TAKE AWAY FROM IT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I'LL JUST GO BRIEFLY OVER -- THERE'S ACTUALLY JUST THREE MORE SLIDES THAT TRY TO BASICALLY GIVE YOU AN INSIGHT INTO EACH OF THESE THREE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS THAT SAID, WELL, WHAT ABOUT THE APPLICATIONS THAT WERE RECEIVED? AGAIN, IN THE SAN DIEGO CIRCUMSTANCE, YOU WOULD FIND THAT OF THE FOUR, AND THIS BASICALLY REPEATS WHAT WAS IN THAT LARGER STATEWIDE, IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THE MORE YOU HAVE IN TERMS OF THE GRANTS, THE LOWER THE COST IS PER PI FOR THE SHARED LAB. AND THIS IS THE STATEWIDE AVERAGE AND SAN DIEGO AVERAGE. | ||||||||
| NOW, WE CAN VERY QUICKLY GO TO THE NEXT, WHICH WOULD BE THE BAY AREA, AND YOU CAN SEE THE SAME, THAT IT'S A BIT DIFFERENT HERE BECAUSE WE HAVE SHARED LAB PROPOSALS WHERE THERE ARE NO PI'S OR TRAINING GRANTS THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY CIRM. AND CERTAINLY THAT DOESN'T SAY THAT THESE WOULDN'T BE INVESTABLE. IT'S JUST THAT WE'RE TRYING TO, AGAIN, COMPARE AND GIVE YOU INFORMATION ON THE GEOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES OF THESE SHARED LABS. | ||||||||
| IN THIS CASE MOST OF THE SHARED LAB, THE LOWEST COSTS ARE, OF COURSE, IN THE LARGEST ENTITIES. AND, AGAIN, THIS IS NOT UNEXPECTED FOR LOS ANGELES AREA, THAT THERE'S THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF CIRM GRANTS THAT RESULT IN THE LOWEST COST. AND ALTHOUGH THESE -- | ||||||||
| SO THERE'S THREE GRANT RECIPIENTS IN THE LOS ANGELES AREA THAT DON'T HAVE OR DID NOT PROPOSE A SHARED LAB. AND SO OBVIOUSLY THESE WOULD TEND TO REDUCE AS ALL OF THE PI'S ASSOCIATED WITH THESE INSTITUTIONS TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY RECEIVE OR USE THE SHARED LAB WOULD REDUCE THESE. | ||||||||
| I THINK THAT'S AS FAR AS I WANT TO TAKE THE -- | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: QUESTION. JUST FOR FUTURE REFERENCE, DO YOU HAVE ANY DATA OR KNOW OF ANY INDICATING SUCCESSFUL DEVELOPMENT OF EFFECTIVE THERAPIES THAT COULD BE THROWN INTO THE MIX WITH THESE NUMBERS? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I PERSONALLY -- WHEN YOU SAY EFFECTIVE THERAPIES, THAT'S SOMETHING I WOULD HAVE TO TURN TO THE SCIENCE OFFICE TO DEFINE. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE IT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THERE IS INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THE PATENT PRODUCTIVITY OF VARIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN CALIFORNIA, BUT THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THERAPIES. IF YOU TOOK THE PATENT PRODUCTIVITY AND YOU CAN ALSO LOOK AT -- YOU COULD CREATE FROM THAT A STUDY OF WHERE THE TRANSLATIONAL SUCCESSES HAVE BEEN, AND THAT WOULD BE A VERY INTERESTING CHART. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: MAYBE FDA APPROVALS MIGHT BE AN INDICATOR. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: ARE THERE ANY OTHER CHARTS THAT YOU WANTED TO SHARE? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THIS WAS THE END. I'LL JUST MENTION THERE'S TWO HERE THAT ARE ON STEM CELL COURSE. AGAIN, SINCE WE DON'T HAVE THE SCORING, IT'S NOT GOING TO MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE, BUT JUST SO YOU COULD SEE THE COMPARATIVE INFORMATION. AGAIN, I'M TRYING TO JUXTAPOSE WHERE THE CIRM GRANTS HAVE OCCURRED, AND THEN DOWN HERE I'VE INDICATED HOW MANY OF THESE ARE TRAINING GRANTS. SO THERE'S FOUR AT EACH OF THE LARGE METROPOLITAN AREAS NOTED, AND THEN ONE AT EACH OF FOUR OF THESE SIX AREAS. SO THESE ARE, AGAIN, THE SAME NUMBERS OF CIRM GROUPS. | ||||||||
| AND THEN WHEN WE LOOK AT WHERE THE CIRM -- WHERE THE CAPITAL FUNDING REQUESTS WOULD BE FOR, USING THE RIGHT AXIS, THE NUMBER OF TECHNIQUES COURSES IN THE LOCATION, RIGHT NOW IF YOU WERE TO APPROVE FIVE, WHICH IS THE RFA, YOU WOULD HAVE TO TAKE NINE. THERE'S ONE HERE WITH 34 GRANTS OF WHICH FOUR ARE TRAINING. IN THIS LOCAL THERE'S 51 GRANTS, FIVE PROPOSALS FOR STEM CELL TECHNIQUES COURSES. AND THEN JUST SO YOU SEE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HAVING A STEM CELL COURSE FUNDED BY CIRM IN THE AREA AND HOW THAT RELATES TO WHAT ARE THE PREVIOUS ACTIONS TO GIVE OUT CIRM FUNDING AND, IN PARTICULAR HOW, MANY TRAINING GRANTS. | ||||||||
| SO THAT WAS THE LAST SLIDE THAT I HAD TO SHARE WITH YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU. THIS INFORMATION, AT LEAST FOR ME PERSONALLY, IT TOOK AWHILE TO GRASP, IF YOU WILL; BUT ONCE I GOT A HANDLE ON IT, I THINK IT IS HELPFUL. IT IS VERY HELPFUL. | ||||||||
| IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION WITH MR. KELLER ON THE INFORMATION THAT HE'S JUST SHARED WITH US? | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: COULD YOU PROVIDE COPIES OF THESE? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: YES, HE WILL. SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS POINT, I WOULD ASSUME THAT THE TABULATIONS AND CALCULATIONS HAVEN'T BEEN COMPLETED THUS FAR, OTHERWISE THEY'D BE IN HERE. SO I'LL LEAVE IT UP TO THE COMMITTEE'S PLEASURE. WE CAN STAND IN RECESS, OR WE CAN BEGIN A DISCUSSION ON THE -- AS YOU KNOW, EARLIER TODAY, AS BOB REPORTED, THE ICOC RATIFIED OUR DECISION OF FRIDAY, THE 13TH TO HOLD HEARINGS TO GATHER INFORMATION ON THE GRANTS FACILITIES $222 MILLION RFA. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I NEVER REALIZED THAT IT WAS FRIDAY, THE 13TH. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: IT WAS FRIDAY, THE 13TH. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER FACILITIES WORKING GROUP MEETINGS ON FRIDAY, THE 13TH. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY PRODUCTIVE. IT WAS INTERESTING. ANYWAYS, WE COULD BEGIN TO HAVE A DISCUSSION NOW ABOUT SOME OF THE ISSUES WE WANT TO ADDRESS, IDENTIFY. IT'S BEEN SUGGESTED THAT WE FOLLOW SORT OF A STUDY GROUP, THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TASK FORCE, THEIR INFORMATION GATHERING. I KNOW MR. SHEEHY AND I THINK JANET AND MARCY AS WELL, YOU SERVED ON THOSE COMMITTEES, SO YOU HAVE A REALLY GOOD IDEA OF HOW WE MIGHT BE PRODUCTIVE. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE ARE PRODUCTIVE. I LEAVE IT UP TO THE PLEASURE OF THE COMMITTEE AS TO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: THERE IS ONE POINT THAT I THINK WE COULD DEBATE TONIGHT. IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL. I THINK DEBORAH SUGGESTED THAT WE HAVE THE RFA FOR COMMENT, PUBLIC COMMENT, THAT WE PUT IT OUT AND HAVE INTERESTED PEOPLE COMMENT ON IT, A DRAFT OF IT. I THINK A REFERENCE IS MADE TO ME THAT THAT COULD POSE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IF WE DID THAT. MAYBE WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT. I DON'T KNOW. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: YOU KNOW, BOB IN YOUR DISCUSSION, I DON'T WANT YOU TO GO OVER IT AGAIN, YOU CAN, BOB, BUT YOU HIGHLIGHTED THREE THINGS THAT WE WOULD WANT TO ACCOMPLISH. AND THAT IS IDENTIFYING THE RULES, THE PROCEDURES, I THINK. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: BASICALLY THERE ARE THREE ELEMENTS: THE DEFINITIONS, THE RULES, AND POLICIES. AND JUST TO REORIENT EVERYONE, I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE SOME EXAMPLES, BUT BEFORE THAT, JUST SO WE'RE RESPONSIVE TO MARCY, I WOULD SAY IN TERMS OF THE RFA THING, IT MIGHT BE BEST IF WE HAD LORI HERE FOR THAT PART OF THE DISCUSSION. SO SHE MIGHT BE ABLE TO CONTRIBUTE. | ||||||||
| BUT IN TERMS OF DEFINITIONS, CLEARLY WE NEED TO PUT TOGETHER A LIST OF THINGS THAT WE NEED GOOD DEFINITIONS ON. MATCHING FUNDS IS TOP OF THE LIST. WE NEED TO DECIDE ON RULES, VERY SPECIFICALLY RULES. FOR EXAMPLE, I'VE USED AS AN EXAMPLE BEFORE, IF YOU HAVE A -- IF YOU'RE PUTTING AN APPLICATION FOR A SHARED FACILITY, LIKE IN SAN DIEGO, AND YOU HAVE A GOOD JUSTIFICATION FOR A VERY SPECIALIZED FACILITY LIKE THEY MADE IN THE SHARED LABS WHERE EACH OF THE FOUR HAS A DIFFERENT SPECIALIZATION, IS THERE A JUSTIFICATION FOR THEM EXPANDING THOSE BECAUSE OF THE VALUE TO THE STATE OF THAT EXPERTISE BEING FURTHER DEVELOPED. | ||||||||
| SO CAN SOMEONE APPLY FOR BOTH AN INDIVIDUAL FACILITY AND A SHARED FACILITY? IF THEY CAN, THEN THE QUESTION IS IF THE ARGUMENT IS IN A SHARED FACILITY THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO AGGREGATE THE INDIVIDUAL CAPS ON A GRANT, IF YOU DO AN INDIVIDUAL FACILITY, SHOULD WHATEVER YOU USE UP IN THAT INDIVIDUAL FACILITY BE DEDUCTED FROM THE AGGREGATED CAP THAT YOU'RE USING. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: MR. KLEIN, THAT IS SOMETHING WE'VE GOT TO TACKLE. AS TO DEBORAH'S IDEA, WHETHER IT'S OF BENEFIT TO ISSUE A DRAFT RFA, LEAVE IT FOR COMMENT, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT A LOT OF PUBLIC AGENCIES DO. THERE'S SOME REALLY STRONG POLICY REASONS WHY. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: IT CAN BE DICEY IF YOU'VE MODIFIED SIGNIFICANTLY TO ADDRESS ONE ENTITY'S CONCERNS. IS THAT THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST ISSUE? | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: YES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: SO WE'RE NOW GOING TO SHIFT. WE HAVE THE INFORMATION AND THE SCORES HAVE BEEN INPUTTED AND TABULATED, AND I THINK WE'RE READY TO BEGIN NOW REALLY THE MEAT AND POTATOES OF THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW; IS THAT RIGHT? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THAT'S CORRECT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: LET'S PROCEED. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: DAVID, JUST ONE COMMENT. AND I KNOW WE'RE ALL TRYING OUR BEST, BUT I HAVE TO JUST ASK OUR COURT REPORTER HOW MANY HOURS SHE'S BEEN WORKING TODAY. AND I HAVE TO SAY -- I JUST HAVE TO WARN YOU. I CAN'T GIVE THIS MY BEST WORK PRODUCT AT THIS POINT, HAVING STARTED AT SEVEN. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: COLLECTIVELY WE'LL GET AS FAR AS WE CAN. AND WHEN WE HAVE TO PULL THE PLUG, WE WILL, BUT I THINK WE CAN GET STARTED RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WE WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT AS FIRST THE RESULTS OF THE SCORES FOR THE SHARED LABS, AND LET YOU SEE THE DISTRIBUTION ON THE HISTOGRAPH, AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK -- YOU CAN THEN MAKE SOME JUDGMENTS ABOUT HOW YOU WANT TO BEGIN ESTABLISHING A LINE, AND THEN WE WOULD COME BACK TO THE SHARED LABS AT THE END. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: MR. KELLER, VERY BRIEFLY, CAN YOU REFRESH THE COMMITTEE AS TO WHAT EXACTLY ARE THE ELEMENTS OF THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW, GEOGRAPHIC. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THEY WERE -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: IT'S NOT THE TECHNICAL REVIEW. IT'S THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW, AND WE IDENTIFIED CERTAIN AREAS IN WHICH WE WERE GOING TO SPEAK TO IN THIS PORTION OF THE REVIEW; IS THAT RIGHT? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WELL, WE TALKED ABOUT DISTRIBUTION OF THAT IN THE GEOGRAPHIC SENSE AND ALSO THE NOTION OF EXPANSION. I THINK IT HAS TO DO WITH THE MONEY AND HOW THAT WORKS IN TERMS OF HELPING IN TERMS OF THE EXPANSION. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I THINK -- | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: DAVID, DO YOU HAVE CRITERIA IN FRONT OF YOU? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I THINK THERE WAS SOMETHING IN THE RFA, BUT I DON'T WANT TO GET ON A SIDE TRACK HERE. JAMES, DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? | ||||||||
| MR. HARRISON: NO. I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT THE PROCEDURES THAT WERE ADOPTED, RECOMMENDED BY THIS COMMITTEE AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD, STATE THAT THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW WILL GIVE CONSIDERATION OF GEOGRAPHICAL AND OTHER FACTORS, AND THAT'S THE DEFINITION. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT OBVIOUSLY EXPANDING INVENTORY OF STEM CELL LABORATORIES ACROSS THE STATE IS A STRATEGIC PRIORITY FOR CIRM, BUT IT CAN BE -- I THINK IT'S BROAD ENOUGH IN THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW THAT WE CAN MAKE ANYTHING A PRIORITY FOR THE GROUP. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE, AND IF THERE ARE, PLEASE, OTHERWISE I'LL ASK STAFF TO BEGIN THEIR DETAILED PRESENTATION. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: DAVID. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: ONE MOMENT. ARE YOU READY? YES. MS. SAMUELSON, DID YOU HAVE A FURTHER COMMENT? | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: IF THIS IS THE MOMENT TO TALK ABOUT OTHER RELEVANT CRITERIA. IF IT'S LATER, I'LL CERTAINLY WAIT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: HE NEEDS TO PRESENT HIS MATERIAL. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: LET'S GET AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US. | ||||||||
| MS. LEWIS: SOME OF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THIS CHART BECAUSE WE'VE USED IT BEFORE. AMY LEWIS. HAPPY TO BE HERE. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: DOES THAT CHART GET BIGGER? | ||||||||
| MS. LEWIS: IT DOESN'T GET BIGGER, AND I'LL SHOW ON THE SCREEN. I'M SORRY. IT'S A PRETTY BAD DISPLAY THERE, BUT I'LL WALK YOU THROUGH IT. IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE, SO IT SHOULD MAKE SENSE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: MS. LEWIS, BEFORE YOU BEGIN, IF ANY COMMITTEE MEMBERS WANT TO MOVE AND GET A CLOSER LOOK AT THAT, PLEASE DO. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: IS IT POSSIBLE TO PUT ON THIS SCREEN AS WELL? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: WHY DON'T WE LET MS. LEWIS EXPLAIN IT. | ||||||||
| MS. LEWIS: SO THE GRAPH THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS A GRAPH OF THE SCORES, THE AVERAGE SCORES, FOR EACH ONE OF THE SHARED LABORATORIES PORTIONS OF THE APPLICATIONS. SO THERE ARE 22 SHARED LABORATORIES THAT YOU SCORED. AND ON THE HORIZONTAL LINE THERE AT THE BOTTOM, THOSE ARE THE AVERAGE SCORES. YOU'LL SEE THEY RANGE FROM 1 TO 101, BUT THEY'RE ACTUALLY 1 TO 100. SO THOSE ARE THE NUMBERS THAT YOU ENTERED. | ||||||||
| THE FREQUENCY, THAT'S HOW MANY TIMES A SHARED LABORATORY RETURNED AN AVERAGE SCORE OF A CERTAIN NUMBER. AND YOU WILL SEE THAT GOES UP TO FIVE. SO THERE HAPPEN TO BE A COUPLE OF APPLICATIONS THAT ENDED UP HAVING THE SAME AVERAGE SCORE. THAT'S WHY YOU WILL SEE SOME OF THE BARS ARE TALLER. SEVERAL APPLICATIONS, FOUR OF THEM ACTUALLY, RETURNED THE SAME SCORE RIGHT UNDER HIGH 80S, LOW 90S. | ||||||||
| SO NORMALLY THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE TO TAKE A LOOK HERE AND SEE IF YOU SEE A NATURAL BREAK IN THE SCORES. AND IF YOU MIGHT WANT TO DRAW A LINE AND MAKE A MOTION THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO TALK ANY FURTHER ABOUT APPLICATIONS THAT SCORE UNDER A CERTAIN NUMBER. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I SEE MARCY'S HAND. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: I THINK IT'S INTERESTING THAT THERE'S ALMOST A NATURAL BREAK AT THE SCORE OF 73, AND THAT WAS THE SAME BREAKING SCORE OF THE SCIENTIFIC SCORES. I FIND THAT KIND OF SCARY. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: SO THE FIRST TASK WOULD BE IF WE COULD FIND, I GUESS, THE TIER 3. IS THAT WHAT WE'D WANT TO DO FIRST? THE TIER 3 WOULD BE NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING AT THIS TIME. IF SO, IF WE FIND A NATURAL BREAK. MARCY THREW OUT 73. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE TIER 3 QUESTION? | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: IF WE'RE STARTING TO TALK ABOUT NOT RECOMMENDING FOR FUNDING, I THINK I'D LIKE TO THROW THIS ONE IN, WHICH IS IN TERMS OF FIGURING OUT WHAT THE CRITERIA ARE THAT WE'RE MAKING OUR DETERMINATION ON. UNLIKE THE GRANTS WORKING GROUP, WE REALLY DIDN'T EVALUATE THE PROGRAMMATIC OBJECTIVES AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE APPLICANT. WE REALLY ZEROED IN ON VERY TECHNICAL DETAILS. AND I'M NOT SURE IF WE KNEW THAT ONE OF THOSE THAT WOULD BE DOWN AT THE BOTTOM HAD A BRILLIANT, VERY TRANSLATIONAL, VERY EFFECTIVE PROGRAM IN MIND, IT WAS VERY FOCUSED, AND SOME OF THEM DID. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I THINK, JOAN, IF WE WERE TO SAY -- THIS IS AN IF -- WE WERE TO SAY 73 WAS THE NATURAL BREAK FOR TIER 3, WE WOULD THEN GET A CHART -- AND, STAFF, STOP WHEN -- NO. NO. THAT'S WRONG -- WE WOULD THEN GET A CHART THAT WOULD SAY, LIKE THE CHARTS WE'VE SEEN BEFORE, WHICH HAS THE APPLICATION AND THEN THEIR SCORE FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST. WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING WE COULD LOOK AT? OKAY. | ||||||||
| AND THEN AT THAT POINT WE CAN SEE, OKAY, SHOULD THIS APPLICATION REALLY BE IN A TIER 2 OR A TIER 3. THAT'S PART OF A PROGRAMMATIC CONSIDERATION. BUT RIGHT NOW I THINK WE WANT TO ACCOMPLISH INITIALLY, AND THIS IS STILL A MOVING TARGET, IS WHAT WILL BE THE BREAK? IT APPEARS FROM THE RAW DATA THAT IT'S 73. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE A MOTION. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: OKAY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THAT WE HAVE THE TIER 3 AT 73 AND BELOW, PRELIMINARILY BELOW 73. THAT WOULD BE 72 OR LESS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: 72 OR LESS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: 72 OR LESS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: SECOND. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: SECOND BY MR. SHEEHY. IS THERE DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I'D LIKE TO FINISH MY COMMENT, WHICH IS THAT WE'RE GOING -- WE'VE GONE A LONG WAY DOWN THE ROAD, AND NOW WE'LL BE GOING FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD TOWARD DECIDING IF A PROJECT GETS FUNDED OR NOT. IF WE'RE GOING TO BUILD IT TO CREATE THOSE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE OTHER RESEARCHERS TO COME, WHETHER OR NOT THE PLACE HAS AN EFFECTIVE PROGRAMMATIC STRUCTURE AND MIGHT WELL CONSIGN SOMETHING TO THE TRASH CAN THAT DOES WITHOUT EVEN LOOKING, IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: YOUR COMMENTS ARE DULY NOTED, AND I THINK WE CAN GET INTO THEM. I KNOW WE WILL ONCE WE HAVE THIS BREAK. SO THERE'S BEEN A MOTION, A SECOND. IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? BOB, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO SAY? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY, TO ADDRESS JOAN'S CONCERN, THAT AFTER THIS -- THIS IS A PRELIMINARY LINE. AFTER THE LINE IS DRAWN, WE CAN EXAMINE IF THERE'S ANY PARTICULARLY NOTEWORTHY FACTS ABOUT ANYONE BELOW THE LINE. IT'S A LINE THAT WE THINK WILL HOLD UP, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN'T CONSIDER LOOKING AT WHAT'S BELOW THE LINE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I JUST WANT MAKE A POINT TOO. I THINK WE'VE ALL SCORED. SO WHAT DID YOU MEAN WHEN YOU PUT DOWN 57? AND WHAT DID YOU MEAN WHEN YOU PUT DOWN 73? AND ACTUALLY WE COULD PROBABLY HAVE THIS VOTE AND GO HOME. I THINK THAT THERE'S A REALLY CLEAR LINE. AT LEAST FOR ME PERSONALLY, AND I SUPPORT THIS MOTION, 73 WAS -- THAT'S PROBABLY THE ONLY ONE THAT'S EVEN QUESTIONABLE FOR ME BASED ON THE NUMERICAL RANGES THAT I WAS USING IN MY HEAD TO SCORE THIS. SO I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT'S AN IMPORTANT DISCUSSION POINT. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE MOTION? COUNSEL, DO WE NEED PUBLIC COMMENT? NO. BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT AT THE END. I SHOULD HAVE PROBABLY SAID AT THE BEGINNING. I APOLOGIZE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: END OF THE DAY. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: WE'LL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT AT THE END OF THIS DISCUSSION, OUR PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW DISCUSSION. AM I VIOLATING ANY RULES BY SAYING THAT? FINE. THAT'S WHEN WE'LL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT. UNLESS THERE'S PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WANTS TO TALK RIGHT NOW. I DON'T WANT TO DENY ANYBODY THE CHANCE. I APPRECIATE THE PUBLIC THAT HAVE BEEN SITTING HERE THROUGH THIS WITH US, SO I DON'T WANT TO DENY ANYONE, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON EACH VOTE. WHAT I SHOULD HAVE SAID AT THE BEGINNING OF THE DISCUSSION IS WE'LL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT AT THE END. I DIDN'T. OKAY. FINE. | ||||||||
| WE'VE HAD A MOTION OF THE FLOOR. THERE'S A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: NO. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: ARE THERE ANY ABSTENTIONS? SEEING NO ABSTENTIONS, THE MOTION CARRIES. | ||||||||
| SO, STAFF, CAN WE GET -- DO WE NEED -- | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: NOW WE'RE BASICALLY GOING TO GO TO THE CHART THAT LISTS ALL THE PROJECTS -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: 72 OR BELOW. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: -- SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THE RANK ORDER. | ||||||||
| (PAUSE IN PROCEEDING.) | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: ARE YOU DONE WITH THIS? ARE YOU GOING TO MAKE IT SORT OF SMALLER SO WE CAN SEE THE 72 OR ABOVE? THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. DRAW THE LINE AT, WHAT, 508, 72 OR ABOVE THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: AMY, DO YOU HAVE THE STEM CELL TECHNIQUES COURSES MIXED IN THERE? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: WE'RE GOING TO GIVE STAFF ONE MINUTE TO GET THE BUGS OUT OF THIS ONE. | ||||||||
| MS. LEWIS, YOU'LL LET US KNOW WHEN YOU'RE DONE AND YOU'VE GOT IT FIGURED OUT. IS IT POSSIBLE SO I CAN JUST SEE EVERYTHING FROM 91 TO 73, WHATEVER IT IS? JUST SO I HAVE A SNAPSHOT OF WHAT THOSE LOOK LIKE. I CAN SEE IT ON ONE SCREEN AT THAT INITIAL PAYLINE. MR. KELLER. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: I WAS GOING TO FOLLOW UP ON MEMBER SHEEHY'S QUESTION ABOUT IF YOU DRAW THE LINE THERE, IF ALL YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IS THE AMOUNT, WE HAVE THE CUMULATIVE AMOUNT, IF THAT WOULD HELP THE COMMITTEE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: YES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: MS. LEWIS, COULD YOU SCROLL UP A BIT? THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: WE JUST WANT THE TOTAL. FOURTEEN MILLION. FIVE MILLION TO PLAY WITH. | ||||||||
| COLLEAGUES, WHAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU IS AT THAT PAYLINE, 72 AND BELOW IS, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THAT'S $14,674,851. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT'S ONLY CAPITAL, NOT EQUIPMENT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: RIGHT. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THAT'S INDEED CORRECT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE ONE CONSTRAINT THAT WE DO HAVE IS THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL FUNDING AVAILABLE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WE NEED TO KNOW THE NEXT COLUMN AS WELL. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WE JUST NEED A MINUTE TO GET THAT FORMULA BECAUSE THAT'S -- AS YOU CAN SEE, THE SHARED LAB AND THE TECHNIQUES COURSE, AND WE WERE GOING TO BRING THAT BACK IN, BUT WE'RE JUMPING AHEAD, SO TO SPEAK, SO WE HAVE TO GET THAT CORRECTED. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WHAT'S THE EQUIPMENT TOTAL? THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: ANY OTHER DATA WHILE THIS IS BEING PUT TOGETHER, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO THE COMMITTEE AS THEY'RE DESIGNING THIS? | ||||||||
| (PAUSE IN PROCEEDINGS.) | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: COLLEAGUES, IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, I'M GOING TO SAY LET'S STAND IN RECESS FOR JUST FIVE MINUTES, GIVE STAFF A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO PUT THIS TOGETHER, AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK. WE CAN HAVE A FULLER DISCUSSION. WE'RE GOING TO STAND IN RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. | ||||||||
| (A RECESS WAS TAKEN.) | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: WE'LL CALL THE WORKING GROUP BACK INTO ORDER. THANK YOU FOR THE RECESS. MR. KELLER, WHY DON'T YOU WALK THROUGH WHAT WE HAVE NOW OF THIS REVISED CHART WITH THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND HOW BEST THE COMMITTEE MIGHT PROCEED OR WHAT ITS OPTION MAY BE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THE CHART YOU'RE LOOKING AT TAKES THE HISTOGRAM THAT YOU MADE THE VOTE ON AND ESTABLISHES THAT RED LINE. AND WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IS IN THE ORDER BY AVERAGE SCORE FOR THE LAB. AND IN ORDER TO SHORTEN OUR DUTIES THIS EVENING, WE'VE GONE AHEAD AND JUST PUT THE AVERAGE SCORE FOR THE COURSE THERE FOR YOU TO LOOK AT. AND THEN THE SHARED LAB CAPITAL AMOUNT, WHICH IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE WAY THE MONEY IS APPORTIONED IN PROPOSITION 71, THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY IS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT SUBCATEGORY WITHIN THE $3 BILLION AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT. SO WE HAVE TO KEEP TRACK OF CAPITAL SEPARATE FROM EQUIPMENT AND OPERATING EXPENSE. AND THE BUDGET FOR THE CAPITAL IS $19 MILLION. SO --VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: ARE WE WITHIN THE BUDGET? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: SO THE LAST COLUMN TO THE RIGHT, IF YOU DRAW THE RED LINE, THE AMOUNT FOR CAPITAL DOLLARS IS 14, PRETTY CLOSE TO, 808. AMY, THAT WOULD ALSO INCLUDE THE AMOUNT OF FUNDS FOR CAPITAL ASSOCIATED WITH THE TECHNIQUES COURSE?SHE SAYS THAT SHE HAS DOUBLE-CHECKED IT, AND THEY'RE THE SAME. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: IN TERMS OF THE NEXT STEP PROCEEDING IN THIS PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW, DID YOU WANT TO SHARE WITH US THE TECHNIQUES COURSE STUFF? WAS THERE A CHART YOU WERE ASSEMBLING ON THAT ISSUE? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WELL, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE PROGRAM, YOU HAD A DIRECTIVE OF 15 SHARED RESEARCH LABORATORIES. SO I GUESS MY -- SO THE EXPANSION, THE OBJECTIVE OF THE PROGRAM WOULD BE TO PLACE 15 OF THESE THROUGHOUT THE STATE. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU HAVE THE ABILITY HERE TO TAKE A LOOK AND SAY, WELL -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: GEOGRAPHICALLY WHERE ARE THESE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WELL, THEY WILL BE GEOGRAPHICALLY DISTINCT AS -- WELL, WE'VE SHOWED -- I DID SHOW YOU HOW THEY LAID OUT IN GEOGRAPHY. IF ALL THE ISSUE IS THAT YOU WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE MAXIMUM OPPORTUNITY -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: ONE OF OUR OBJECTIVES, I MEAN IT'S SHARED, SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S GEOGRAPHICALLY DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE STATE SO FOLKS HAVE ACCESS TO IT IN ALL PARTS OF THE STATE. SO I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE LIST IN THAT CONTEXT. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: IN THAT CONTEXT WITH THE GRAPHS THAT I SHARED WITH YOU EARLIER TONIGHT, THIS WOULD FUND ALL BUT RIVERSIDE, SANTA BARBARA, AND ONE BAY AREA ENTITY IN REGENERATIVE SCIENCE INSTITUTE. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: WHAT CITY IS THAT LOCATED IN? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: PALO ALTO. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE LOWER THE TIER 3 LINE TO 53 AND BELOW FOR FUNDING. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT WOULD CAPTURE UC RIVERSIDE AND UC SANTA BARBARA. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: CORRECT. YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT'S A 52. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: 51 AND BELOW. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES. 51 AND BELOW, YES. YES. | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: BEFORE WE GO FURTHER ON THIS MOTION, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT ANYBODY WHO IS CONFLICTED OUT OF UC RIVERSIDE OR UC SANTA BARBARA -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: DOESN'T VOTE ON THE MOTION. | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: -- DOES NOT PARTICIPATE, HAS TO LEAVE THE ROOM. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THEY HAVE TO LEAVE THE ROOM. SO WHO IS CONFLICTED ON UC RIVERSIDE AND UC SANTA BARBARA? | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: I'M LOOKING RIGHT NOW. JEFF SHEEHY -- I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY. LANSING. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: JUST LANSING IS CONFLICTED AND SHE'S NOT HERE. | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: LANSING AND HOFFMAN. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: WHAT COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE CONFLICTED? JUST LANSING. CAN WE PROCEED, COUNSEL? | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: YES. | ||||||||
| (MEMBER LANSING IS RECUSED ON THIS ITEM AND IS NOT PRESENT IN THE ROOM.) | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'LL RESTATE THE MOTION, CORRECTING IT, THAT I THINK THE TIER 3 LINE SHOULD BE DRAWN AT 51 AND BELOW SO THAT UC RIVERSIDE AND UC SANTA BARBARA WILL BE ABOVE THE LINE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THESE ARE FOR GEOGRAPHIC CONSIDERATIONS. THAT'S ONE OF YOUR FACTORS? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU. IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: SECOND. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: SECOND FROM MS. FEIT. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? THE MOTION IS TO PUT -- | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I MEAN THIS IS REALLY A POLICY DECISION FOR US. WHAT DID WE MEAN WHEN WE WROTE DOWN OUR SCORES? OBVIOUSLY NOT VERY MANY OF US WROTE ABOVE 60. AND, YOU KNOW, THIS COMES UP IN THE SCIENTIFIC WORKING GROUP, AND WHAT IS THE INTEGRITY OF YOUR SCORING PROCESS? AND AT SOME POINT YOU HAVE TO DRAW A LINE. | ||||||||
| AND I PERSONALLY COULD NOT SUPPORT THIS MOTION FOR THAT REASON. EVEN THOUGH FOR PROGRAMMATIC REASONS, I COULD SEE FUNDING THESE TWO INSTITUTIONS. I COULD NOT -- I JUST, IF AS A POLICYMAKER THE ICOC FELT THAT THESE TWO INSTITUTIONS NEEDED -- THAT WE NEEDED TO SEND RESOURCES TO THESE INSTITUTIONS, I THINK WE SHOULD PUT OUT ANOTHER RFA. THERE'S ANOTHER WAY TO GET AT THIS OTHER THAN JUST TAKING OUR PROCESS APART BECAUSE THEN OUR SCORES LOSE ALL SIGNIFICANCE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS? I'LL TAKE JANET AND THEN DAVID, AND THEN WE'LL GET TO JOAN. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I WOULD JUST SAY THAT UNLESS I WROTE THIS DOWN WRONG, WE'D WANT TO REMEMBER THAT THE SCORE FOR UC RIVERSIDE WILL NOT BE ENTERED INTO AT THIS POINT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: MARCY, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: NO, I DIDN'T. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: DAVID AND THEN JOAN. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: JEFF, I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN. REMEMBER, WE HAVEN'T DECIDED IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A TIER 2 AND TIER 1 AND WHAT THOSE TIERS EXACTLY MEAN YET. SO WE'RE JUST DECIDING ON THE TIER 3 LINE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: JOAN, YOU HAD A COMMENT. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: YEAH. I THINK WHAT IT MAY MEAN, IT DOES TO ME, IS THAT THE RANKING IS BASED ON CRITERIA THAT ARE PERHAPS NOT AS IMPORTANT AS OTHER CRITERIA THAT WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED YET. AND WE DON'T WANT TO EXCLUDE PERMANENTLY ANYTHING THAT MIGHT BE IN THE BETTER POSITION ONCE WE HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: MARCY AND THEN BOB. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: ONE MORE SENTENCE, DAVID. SORRY. THIS ISN'T TO COMPLETELY DISCOUNT THE CRITERIA THAT HAVE LED TO THIS RANKING. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND WHICH PROJECTS MIGHT HAVE BETTER EFFICIENCIES IN SOME PART OF THE PROJECT, BUT THAT ISN'T NECESSARILY -- THEY AREN'T NECESSARILY THE ONLY OR MOST IMPORTANT CRITERIA. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU. MARCY. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: ONE WAY WE MIGHT WANT TO APPROACH THIS, IF WE REALLY FEEL THAT WE WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS SERIOUSLY, BECAUSE I THINK GEOGRAPHY IS A CONSIDERATION, WE SAID IT IN THE BEGINNING IT WAS ONE OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR DOING THIS. I TEND TO AGREE WITH JEFF. I THINK FROM A PRINCIPLE POSITION, WE SHOULDN'T DROP THE LINE JUST FOR THE SAKE OF DROPPING THE LINE. I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A SOLID REASON. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH US GOING BACK AND TAKING A LOOK AT THESE TWO PROJECTS AND FINDING OUT WHAT -- I MEAN SEE WHAT EVEN THE STAFF ANALYSIS SAID IN TERMS OF TO REFRESH US. I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER NOW AT THIS POINT THIS LATE AT NIGHT TO SEE IF THERE WERE AREAS TO MITIGATE, AREAS THAT COULD BE MITIGATED IF WE BELIEVE GEOGRAPHY WAS IMPORTANT. I'M JUST BRINGING THAT UP AS A WAY OF TAKING A LOOK AT THIS. | ||||||||
| IF WE WANTED TO, THERE'S ONLY TWO OF THEM. WE COULD REVISIT THEM BRIEFLY. I THINK WE DID THAT IN THE GRANT WORKING GROUP. THERE WAS SOME DISCREPANCY BETWEEN HOW PEOPLE FELT, AND WE JUST REVISITED THE RESEARCH. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I THINK THAT'S A GOOD SUGGESTION. SO WE'LL SHIFT GEARS. BOB, I'M SORRY. YOU HAD A COMMENT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT IN EACH OF THESE SESSIONS WHEN WE DO THIS THAT, WHILE THIS IS IMPORTANT TO US TO LOOK AT THE TOTAL OF ALL SCORES, THAT WE SHOULD GET A CALCULATION THAT SHOWS WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU THROW OUT ANY OUTLIER THAT HAS MORE THAN A 20-PERCENT OR 15-PERCENT DEVIATION AT THE TOP OR BOTTOM OF THE SCALE. BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, TO SEE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO AT THAT LEVEL, I'M WONDERING WHETHER THERE'S A BIG RANGE BETWEEN THE PEOPLE AT THIS TABLE IN HOW WE RANKED IT. | ||||||||
| SO WHAT WE WANT TO BE CAREFUL OF IS THAT AVERAGES CAN BE MISLEADING, AND WE JUST, I THINK, WANT TO CROSS VALIDATE BY LOOKING AT WHAT THE SCORES ARE LIKE IF WE ELIMINATE MAJOR OUTLIERS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN DO, STAFF? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: MAJOR OUTLIERS AMONGST THE VOTERS OR A CATEGORY? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AMONGST US HERE AT THE TABLE SO THAT IF THEY HAVE A SCORE THAT'S -- IF THEY HAVE SCORES THAT ARE 20 PERCENT OFF AT THE TOP OR BOTTOM FROM THE NEXT CLOSEST SCORE, THAT'S A SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: HOWEVER, I'M CONCERNED THAT THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY REVIEWERS HAVE THE MOST INFORMATION ABOUT THAT. IF THEY ARE THE OUTLIERS, ARE -- | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: WE WON'T KNOW UNTIL WE VISIT THEM. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WE WON'T KNOW UNTIL WE LOOK AT IT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WE WON'T KNOW UNTIL WE LOOK AT IT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: COUNSEL. | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: I THINK THAT THIS MAY BE A CONVERSATION THAT YOU WANT TO HAVE TOMORROW WHEN YOU'RE TALKING BOTH ABOUT THE OPEN MEETINGS AND ABOUT PROCEDURES FOR THE LARGE FACILITIES GRANTS. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN CHANGE THE PROCEDURE FOR THE EVALUATION FOR THIS GRANT, THIS SERIES OF -- | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WE HAD A MATHEMATICAL FORMULA IN OUR PROCEDURES? | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THEN I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THIS WOULD BE AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION, PARTICULARLY WITH THE MUCH HIGHER DOLLAR AMOUNTS AT RISK IN THE MAJOR FACILITIES, TO DISCUSS AND AGREE ON SOME STATISTICAL VALIDATIONS THAT WE MIGHT USE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING A REAL VIEW OF CONSENSUS AND ELIMINATING ANY -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: BOB, THAT'S A GOOD POINT, AND LET'S BRING IT UP FOR THE NEXT ROUND. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I THINK IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION OF THE REVIEW, WE CAN GO BACK TO THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY REVIEWERS ON EACH OF THE TWO GRANTS. ED AND I WERE THE REVIEWERS ON UCSB. I THINK THAT THAT PRETTY MUCH REFLECTS WHAT I PUT DOWN. | ||||||||
| I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE POINT. WHEN WE -- ASSUMING THAT THIS DOES NOT MATCH UP EXACTLY WITH THE SCIENTIFIC SCORES, IF WE WANT THIS TO HAVE ANY INFLUENCE ON THE ICOC IN BEING DETERMINANT, THERE HAS TO BE SOME CREDIBILITY TO THIS PROCESS. AND IF WE START SCORING -- MOVING OUR LOW ONES UP, THIS IS NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE DECISION AT THE ICOC BECAUSE THERE'S NO CREDIBILITY TO THIS PROCESS, AND WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME STANDARDS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: DAVID AND THEN I'LL MAKE A COMMENT. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: WE MIGHT AS WELL NOT HAVE BEEN HERE TODAY. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D ACTUALLY LIKE TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: JEFF'S REMINDING US. ULTIMATELY THIS IMPORTANT WORKING GROUP IS MAKING ITS RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE FULL ICOC, AND THE ICOC IS POPULATED WITH INTELLIGENT PEOPLE. THEY WILL FULLY ANALYZE OUR DATA AND OUR INFORMATION. THEY'LL WANT TO KNOW IN EXCRUCIATING DETAIL HOW WE CAME ABOUT MAKING THESE SETS OF RECOMMENDATIONS. JEFF MAKES A GOOD POINT. WHAT'S GIVEN IN THE SCIENTIFIC WORKING GROUP AND THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ICOC, QUOTE,CREDIBILITY HAS BEEN THAT STRONG LOGIC AND HAVING A LINE THAT YOU FINALLY HAVE TO DRAW IN THE SAND. | ||||||||
| SO DAVID HAS WITHDRAWN THE MOTION. SO CURRENTLY THINGS STAND AT 73, OR 72 AND BELOW. | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: I AGREE ABOUT NOT JUST ARBITRARILY DROPPING THE LINE. AND I THINK THE INTEGRITY OF THE WORK THAT'S DONE IS AT RISK HERE; HOWEVER, HAVING SAID THAT, ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WAS DRAWN UP AT THE RESEARCH GRANT WORKING GROUP WAS AN ISSUE WAS BROUGHT UP ABOUT CHILDREN, THE GENERIC CATEGORY OF CHILDREN, THAT THERE WASN'T ENOUGH RESEARCH EMPHASIS MADE ON RESEARCH BEING CONDUCTED FOR CHILDREN. AND SO THERE WAS AN EFFORT TO MAKE SOME CHANGES IN THEIR DECISIONS BASED ON THAT, IF I REMEMBER RIGHT. | ||||||||
| ONE GRANT WAS MOVED UP, I BELIEVE. BUT ANYWAY, I'M TALKING GENERICALLY, SO I'M NOT NAMING ANYTHING. BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS I THINK WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION JUST TO DOUBLE-CHECK AND MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE NOT ELIMINATING SOME FACTOR IN OUR THINKING. THAT'S ALL. I AGREE WITH THE IDEA THAT WE SHOULD NOT JUST ARBITRARILY DROP THE LINE FOR THE SAKE OF DROPPING THE LINE AND SPENDING THE MONEY BECAUSE THAT ISN'T APPROPRIATE. I JUST THINK IT'S A DUE DILIGENCE, A FINAL DUE DILIGENCE ON OUR PART TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE TAKEN A HARD LOOK AT OUR LINE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: WE'VE TAKEN A HARD LOOK AT THE INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN GIVEN TO US. WE'VE ASSIGNED THE SCORES, AND THEY'VE BEEN TABULATED, AND THEY'RE BEFORE US. | ||||||||
| MY QUESTION IS WHAT SORT OF DUE DILIGENCE ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? WE HAVE TO PROVIDE A WORK PRODUCT TO THE ICOC. AND JEFF BRINGS UP A GOOD POINT. MARCY, YOU RAISED IT. 73, THAT JUST SEEMS TO BE THE NUMBER AND IT CORRESPONDS. AND THESE THINGS HAPPEN. IT'S INTERESTING, BUT I THINK THERE'S SOME VALIDITY TO THAT. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: MAYBE WE CAN HEAR FROM THE REVIEWERS. I PERSONALLY FEEL THAT THE UCSB -- I WAS THE SECONDARY REVIEWER. THAT REFLECTS -- I DID NOT SCORE THAT TO BE FUNDED. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: YOU WERE THE SECONDARY REVIEWER. MR. KASHIAN, YOU WERE THE PRIMARY REVIEWER FOR UC RIVERSIDE. DOES THAT -- IT'S RIGHT THERE RANKED AT 55. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: DAVID, I DON'T FEEL QUALIFIED TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS CONVERSATION. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: SURE YOU CAN BECAUSE YOU WERE THE -- WHAT DOES YOUR SCORE SAY? ISN'T IT AROUND 55? | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION AT HAND. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THE QUESTION IS YOU WERE THE PRIMARY REVIEWER FOR UC RIVERSIDE. YOU GAVE IT A SCORE. YOUR SCORE HAS ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED. YOU DON'T HAVE TO DISCLOSE YOUR SCORE. WHAT JEFF HAS SAID IS THE AVERAGE SCORE REPRESENTED THERE IS HIS SCORE, NOT HIS SCORE, BUT IT'S CLOSE TO HIS SCORE. IS IT ALSO CLOSE TO YOURS AS THE PRIMARY REVIEWER? THAT'S SORT OF MY QUESTION. YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER IT. THE APPLICATION NUMBER WAS 508. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: 521 IS THE ONE I'M TALKING ABOUT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I'M SORRY. YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT RIVERSIDE. I APOLOGIZE. SANTA BARBARA, NOT RIVERSIDE. THAT'S 521. THAT'S SORT OF IN SYNC WITH WHAT MR. SHEEHY HAS SAID? | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: YES. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I DISTINCTLY REMEMBER THE DISCUSSION, THAT THERE WAS A CERTAIN THRESHOLD THAT THIS NOT FELT HAD BEEN MET. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO, ED, SO YOU WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THAT APPLICATION WOULD NOT BE FUNDED; IS THAT CORRECT? | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: THAT'S CORRECT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AT SOME POINT HERE CAN WE LOOK AT THE OTHER COLUMNS RELATED TO THE TECHNIQUES COURSE AND JUST HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THOSE? THE QUESTION IS, DAVID -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: BEFORE WE GET TO THAT, AND I WANT TO GET TO THAT, BOB. JEFF HAD THE SUGGESTION AND WE'VE DONE THE EXERCISE WITH ONE OF THEM. IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION FROM THE UC RIVERSIDE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY REVIEWER, JUST TO SORT OF GENERALLY SAY, YES, THAT WAS WHAT I GAVE IT, THAT SCORE AS WELL. YOU DON'T HAVE TO. WHO WERE THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY REVIEWERS FOR UC RIVERSIDE? I THINK I WAS THE SECONDARY. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: MEMBER KASHIAN WAS PRIMARY. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: YOU SHOULD HAVE HAD DESSERT WITH YOUR SON. UC RIVERSIDE AND THAT IS 508. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: AGAIN, THIS IS ONE OF THE TWO VERY LOW SCORES THAT I HAD. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I THINK IN MY -- WAS I THE -- MR. KELLER, WAS I THE SECONDARY REVIEWER FOR UC RIVERSIDE? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: YES, YOU WERE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU. MAKE SURE I'M LOOKING AT THE RIGHT ONE. I GAVE IT A HIGHER SCORE THAN WHAT IS THE AVERAGE SCORE BEFORE US.IT'S IN THE MID 70S RANGE, AND THAT WAS BECAUSE I THINK I GAVE THEM MORE POINTS IN THE MATCHING -- EXCUSE ME -- THE MATCHING GRANT COLUMN. IT'S MY RECOLLECTION THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH IT HAVING TO DO WITH SOME SPECULATIVE FUNDS THEY MAY OR MAY NOT SPEND. I GAVE THEM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT PURSUANT TO THE MOTION THAT THEY WOULD RESOLVE IT, SO I GAVE THEM A HIGHER SCORE. ORIGINALLY I HAD SCORED IT VERY LOW ON THE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT SIDE. HAD I STUCK WITH THAT ORIGINAL SCORE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AROUND WHERE ED IS AT. HE HAD OTHER CONCERNS. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS THE ONE WHERE THE FUTURE RECRUITMENT THAT HAD 90,000 OF UNALLOWABLE COST, JUST TO REMIND YOU. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU. THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION OF THAT ONE, UC RIVERSIDE. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I'M LOOKING AT THE PUBLIC ABSTRACT FOR UC RIVERSIDE, AND IT TALKS ABOUT AN ENERGETIC INTERDISCIPLINARY GROUP OF YOUNG AND ESTABLISHED INVESTIGATORS AND SPECIAL EXPERTISE IN MOLECULAR DIMENSIONS OF PLURIPOTENCY AND GOES ON IN GREAT DETAIL AND GREATER THAN SOME OF THE MUCH MORE HIGHER SCORING PROPOSALS. AND I THOUGHT THIS WAS THE POINT AT WHICH WE WERE GOING TO BRING IN THOSE FACTORS, AT LEAST DO SOME BALANCING, IF NOT GIVE THESE KINDS OF CRITERIA MORE IMPORTANCE, BOTH TO SPEND THIS MONEY WELL AND TO FORECAST FOR THE FUTURE HOW WE WANT MONEY TO BE SPENT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AND I THINK, JOAN, THERE'S SOME GOOD POINTS TO BE MADE, BUT THERE'S SOME GOOD POINTS TO BE MADE TOO WHEN WE GET TO THE ICOC ON THE SCIENCE SIDE WHICH MAY HELP ADVANCE YOUR POINTS. AND SO MAYBE THE PLACE TO GET THIS RESOLVED IS AT THE ICOC BECAUSE THIS IS REALLY A FACILITIES SCORE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: RIGHT. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: THEN I DON'T MEAN TO BE DRAMATIC. I'M GROUCHY FOR OTHER REASONS THAT ARE PROBABLY OBVIOUS, AND I APOLOGIZE. BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY I, AS A PATIENT ADVOCATE, AM SPENDING MY TIME THAT'S PRETTY PRECIOUS AND EXHAUSTED AT THE MOMENT ON THIS PROCESS IF THAT'S THE SCOPE OF OUR WORK. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK -- | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I'M AFRAID -- I'M GOING TO GET DRAMATIC FOR ONE MORE MINUTE. I APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE. I AM AFRAID THAT FIVE YEARS FROM NOW WE'RE GOING TO LOOK BACK AT THIS PHASE AND THINK WE WERE PAYING FAR TOO MUCH ATTENTION TO CRITERIA THAT WERE FAR LESS IMPORTANT THAN SOME OTHER THINGS IF URGENCY IS IMPORTANT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: JOAN, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT WHEN YOU'RE IN AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE YOU CAN MAKE THE ARGUMENT FROM BOTH SIDES, I MIGHT SUPPORT YOUR MOTION. AND THAT BY BEING HERE ON THIS PANEL, YOU HAVE THE INFORMATION YOU NEED WHEN YOU GET TO THE ICOC TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS BOTH SIDES OF THIS ISSUE. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I DON'T WANT TO BE COMING FROM BEHIND LIKE THIS PROCESS TO BE INVOLVED IN THE HIGHEST PRIORITIES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT ALL SCORES OF 73 AND ABOVE ARE TIER 1 SCORES THAT ARE RECOMMENDED TO THE ICOC FOR FUNDING. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: FOR 73 AND ABOVE, I'LL MAKE A SECOND. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? | ||||||||
| MS. FEIT: I'M LISTENING TO WHAT JOAN IS SAYING, AND FOR MANY, MANY MONTHS WE HAVE TALKED ON THE ICOC AND MANY OF THE WORKING GROUPS ABOUT WANTING TO FIND NEW TALENT. YOU CAN ALL REMEMBER THAT. AND MAYBE THIS ISN'T THE ROUND TO DO IT, BUT I THINK JOAN IS MAKING A GREAT POINT. WHAT WE'RE MISSING IN THIS PROCESS IS THE ABILITY FOR US AS A WORKING GROUP TO LOOK AT THESE GRANTS AND TRULY SAY, OKAY. WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON HERE? AND WHAT ARE THEY GOALS? | ||||||||
| I THINK AGAIN, BOB STATED, WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THE DEFINITIONS, WHAT THE POLICIES ARE, AND WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. BUT SHE IS MAKING A POINT THAT I HAVE HEARD ON EVERY WORKING GROUP I'VE SAT ON AND MANY, MANY OF THE ICOC MEETINGS ABOUT YOUNG, NEW BLOOD AND TALENT. I THINK THAT IS EVIDENT SOMEWHAT IN THESE TWO SCORES, THAT THESE ARE YOUNG INVESTIGATORS, AND MAYBE THAT'S THEIR FAILURE, NOT KNOWING THE PROCESS. THEY'RE NOT SEASONED. SO I'M JUST BRINGING THAT UP BECAUSE I HEAR HER MESSAGE, AND I'VE HEARD IT FOR MONTHS. | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: MR. CHAIR, I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT FOR PURPOSES OF THIS MOTION, MARCY FEIT AND JEFF SHEEHY MUST BE RECUSED, SO THEY CAN'T PARTICIPATE IN THIS DISCUSSION AND THEY NEED TO LEAVE THE ROOM. WE'RE VOTING ON TIER 1, AND BOTH OF YOU HAVE CONFLICTS IN TIER 1. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: WE DON'T HAVE QUORUM ISSUES? JUST MAKING SURE. | ||||||||
| (MEMBERS SHEEHY AND FEIT HAVE CONFLICTS AND HAVE LEFT THE ROOM.) | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THE MOTION STILL STANDS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT TO MY OWN MOTION. SO MY ONLY CONCERN ABOUT MAKING THE LINE WHERE WE HAVE IT CURRENTLY AND RECOMMENDING EVERY ONE ABOVE THE LINE FOR TIER 1 AND FOR FUNDING IS THAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GIVING THE RIGHT MESSAGE TO THE INSTITUTIONS FOR THE NEXT ROUND OF GRANTS IN THAT, EVEN THOUGH WE MAY RECOMMEND FUNDING ON THIS ROUND FOR THE SHARED LABORATORIES AT THIS LEVEL, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT WE WILL BE AS FORGIVING IN THE NEXT ROUND FOR THE LARGER DOLLARS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: OKAY. JANET, DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS YOU WANT TO MAKE? | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I HAVE AN IDEA THAT PROBABLY SHOULD BE SHOT DOWN OR IS ILLEGAL SOME WAY. I'LL PROCEED SLOWLY SO YOU GUYS CAN STOP ME BEFORE I GET IN TROUBLE. I USUALLY WATCH JAMES. | ||||||||
| SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT -- OKAY. IT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO WORK -- THAT WE HAVE SOME PROPOSALS THAT RANK HIGH ON SCIENCE AND RANK HIGH ON THE FACILITIES SCORE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: YES. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: AND WE HAVE SOME THAT RANK LOW ON BOTH. TO ME THE INTERESTING AREA IS THE AREAS WHERE THE SCORES ARE IN CONFLICT. AND SO I WAS SORT OF TEASING DAVID THAT I'D LOVE TO SEE A METRIC COMPARING THE DIVERGENCE OF THE TWO SCORES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: FROM FACILITIES WORKING GROUP AND SCIENTIFIC WORKING GROUP? | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: RIGHT. AND SO I SORT OF CIRCLED THE ONES THAT ARE MOST -- | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: THAT HAS TO WAIT TILL THE ICOC. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: YOUR IDEA IS ABSOLUTELY ON POINT, AND IT'S GIVING A PREVIEW. ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. AS AN ICOC MEMBER, JANET, THAT'S WHAT WE'LL BE LOOKING AT. WHERE IS THIS CONVERGENCE? WHERE IS IT NOT? WHERE ARE THE OUTLIERS? THOSE ARE THE HARD QUESTIONS THAT THE ICOC WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH, AND STAFF WILL HAVE TO BE PREPARED TO COMMENT ON. OTHERWISE WE WON'T BE ABLE TO MAKE AN INFORMED AND EDUCATED DECISION. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS WORKING GROUP AND THE TASK THAT IS BEFORE US TODAY IN THIS PART OF THE REVIEW PROCESS, THE PROGRAMMATIC SIDE, WHERE JOAN IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, WE CAN CONSIDER, QUOTE, OTHER FACTORS, OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. | ||||||||
| I'VE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS THAT UC RIVERSIDE, WHILE IT IS A 55, IT DOES HAVE COMPONENTS THAT ARE MERITORIOUS, AND PERHAPS THE LINE SHOULD BE AT 55. SO WE SORT OF NEED TO MOVE ON. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: SO IF WE VOTE, IF WE PASS YOUR MOTION, I REALIZE THE ICOC CAN COME BACK AND RECONSIDER THINGS THAT ARE BELOW THE LINE FOR FUNDING. BUT THE MESSAGE WE'LL BE GIVING THEM IS WE'RE ACTUALLY SUGGESTING THAT THEY NOT DO THAT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT WOULD BE OUR RECOMMENDATION, YES. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: THAT WORRIES ME A LITTLE BIT. VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION, JANET. DO YOU THINK THE LINE SHOULD BE AT 55 TO CAPTURE UC RIVERSIDE? | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I WOULD. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: YOU'VE HEARD FROM A COLLEAGUE WHO IS NOW NOT HERE, BUT MADE A VERY VALID POINT. THAT IS, THE CREDIBILITY THAT THIS WORKING GROUP HAS WITH THE ICOC MAY SOMEHOW BE DAMAGED IF WE WERE SUBMIT TO THEM AT THE 55 LINE. NOW, WE NEED TO BALANCE THAT. MAYBE IT WON'T BE UNCREDIBLE. MAYBE THEY'LL THINK, YEAH, YOU DID A REALLY GOOD JOB AND YOU WERE CONSIDERING THINGS THAT WERE OF RELEVANCE TO THE ICOC'S CONSIDERATION. AND THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT UP TO OUR ATTENTION. THAT'S THE OTHER ARGUMENT YOU CAN MAKE EVEN THOUGH THE SCORE IS 55 AND THE NEXT HIGHEST IS 73. YOU COULD STILL MAKE THAT ARGUMENT WITH A CLEAN CONSCIENCE. THAT'S THE DEBATE I'M HAVING AS WELL. | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: MR. CHAIR, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD THAT THIS MOTION IS ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE SHARED LABS, AND THAT THE COMMITTEE WILL STILL HAVE TO VOTE ON THE TECHNIQUES COURSE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU. I DON'T SEE ANYBODY ON THIS SIDE. BOB, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: JUST FOR JANET AND FOR JOAN, I SEE A LOT OF GOOD REASONS TO MAKE ADVOCACY STATEMENTS TO DEVELOP NEW TALENT FOR THOSE TWO INSTITUTIONS, BUT WE REALLY HAVE TO DO IT, I THINK, AT THE ICOC BECAUSE THIS IS OUR TASK. AND WE NEED TO DEFER THE ARGUMENT, BUT BUILD OUR STRENGTH, JOAN. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: IF THAT'S THE CASE, WHY DOES IT SAY THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO CONSIDER GEOGRAPHIC AND ANY OTHER CRITERIA? | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I THINK FOR THE SAME REASON, JOAN, WE DO SO IN THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW. IT'S THE SAME THING. WE GO BY THE SCORE AND THEN WE READJUST BASED ON GEOGRAPHY OR EXPANSION POTENTIAL. I THINK THERE'S A PARALLEL THERE. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: EXCEPT THAT IT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE RESEARCH FUNDING PROCESS WHERE THEY CONSIDER SCIENTIFIC MERIT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: YOU THINK A MINORITY REPORT MIGHT BE IN ORDER FOR THOSE TWO INSTITUTIONS? | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: I DON'T FEEL STRONGLY ENOUGH. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I'M JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE. SO THE MOTION'S ON THE FLOOR. IT'S BEFORE THE COMMITTEE. IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I'LL ASK MS. KING TO CALL THE ROLL CALL | ||||||||
| MS. KING: ROBERT KLEIN. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YES. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: JOAN SAMUELSON. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: NO. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: DEBORAH HYSEN. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: NO. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: EDWARD KASHIAN. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: I HAVE TO ABSTAIN. I DIDN'T PARTICIPATE IN THE ENTIRE DISCUSSION. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: DAVID LICHTENGER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: JANET WRIGHT. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: YES. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I WOULD VOTE YES. CAN YOU GIVE US THE VOTE TALLY, PLEASE. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: FOUR YESES, TWO NOES, AND ONE ABSTENTION. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: SO THE MOTION CARRIES. | ||||||||
| THE TECHNIQUES COURSE. DEBORAH, WAS THERE SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO SAY TO THE MOTION? IT'S BEEN PASSED. WHAT'S ALSO IMPORTANT IS IT'S OKAY TO HAVE A SPLIT VOTE; BUT IF WE'RE NOT CAPTURING SOMETHING IN THIS DISCUSSION, DEBORAH, NOW IS REALLY THE TIME TO SAY IT. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: IT'S A PERSONAL THING FOR ME. I LIKE TO SUPPORT EXCELLENCE. I DON'T LIKE TO SUPPORT MEDIOCRE. SOMETIMES MEDIOCRE TO ME SHOULD JUST KIND OF DROP INTO THE BOTTOM PILE. I THINK -- I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH WE CAN SAY ABOUT THE PRIOR REVIEW. SO I FEEL I CAN'T REALLY TALK ABOUT THIS, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE IN THE NOTION IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME. I DON'T WANT TO BE CRITICIZED AS REAL ESTATE EXPERTS THAT WE'RE SO ENAMORED WITH THE IDEA OF BUILDING THINGS, THAT WE FORGET THE PURPOSE OF WHY WE'RE BUILDING THEM. SO MY CONCERN IS ARE WE BUILDING BUILDINGS THAT WILL HOUSE QUALITY SCIENCE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: OKAY. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: AND TO ME I WOULD BUMP UP THE NUMBER THAT DROPPED OFF HIGHER. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: YOUR ISSUE IS THAT 73 IS TOO LOW? | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: I BELIEVE SO, IN MY OPINION. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: IT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE'RE SAYING. THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: THAT'S NOT THE MOTION? I THOUGHT IT WAS THE MOTION. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: YOU'RE RIGHT. AS I UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU SAID, AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT LATER, IT'S SORT OF A DIFFERENT TAKE ON WHAT WE WERE DISCUSSING RIGHT NOW INSOMUCH AS PEOPLE WERE THINKING, WELL, SHOULD WE DROP THE NUMBER LOWER TO 55 OR 52, AND YOU'RE SAYING 73 IS TOO LOW TO BEGIN WITH | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: YES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD IT. IT'S VERY INTERESTING. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: POINT OUT THAT IT ISN'T THAT THE BUILDINGS AT 73 MAY BE NOT QUALITY BUILDINGS. FOR EXAMPLE, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO PROBABLY GOT A 73 BECAUSE IT'S SO EXPENSIVE, NOT BECAUSE IT LACKS QUALITY. IT'S JUST EXPENSIVE. | ||||||||
| BUT I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT ON A PI BASIS, THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO HAS A COST OF -- WHAT NUMBER IS IT -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THE MOTION HAS PASSED, SO YOU CAN ASK MARCY AND JEFF TO COME BACK IN, I THINK. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IT'S $71,000 PER PI, SO IT IS VERY EXPENSIVE PER SQUARE FOOT, BUT THE POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVITY IS VERY HIGH. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: CAN I JUST SAY ON THAT UCSF, I WOULD PARTICULARLY RAISE UCSF BECAUSE I THINK WE WOULD BE CRITICIZED VERY HARSHLY IF WE APPROVED A $1585 PER SQUARE FOOT BUILDING. HOWEVER, THERE IS A NOTATION IN THE ANALYSIS THAT IF THE UNALLOWABLE COSTS ARE DROPPED OFF, WHICH WE'VE SAID WE MUST DROP OFF ALL UNALLOWABLE COST, IT DOES BRING IT INTO A REASONABLE $600 A FOOT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AM I READING THAT WRONG? I WOULD NOT SIT HERE TODAY AND SAY A $1585 PER SQUARE FOOT BUILDING SHOULD BE APPROVED. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THAT'S SORT OF THE STATEMENT THAT'S BEEN OUT THERE. MR. KELLER, DO YOU CARE TO RESPOND? I DON'T WANT TO GET LOST. THE MOTION'S PASSED, BUT I DID SORT OF INTRODUCE THE TOPIC BECAUSE I WANTED GET SOME FURTHER BACKGROUND ON WHAT DEBORAH WAS THINKING. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THE ANSWER IS THAT THE WAY THE RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE, THE COST REMAINS THE SAME. THE INSTITUTION IS STILL PICKING UP THOSE COSTS, SO THE COST PER SQUARE FOOT REMAINS THE SAME. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: BUT IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENT SPIN THAT WE DIDN'T APPROVE COSTS IN EXCESS OF $1500 A FOOT. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE COSTS ARE $1500 A SQUARE FOOT, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WE CAN BE DESCRIBED AS SUPPORTING THAT EXTRAORDINARY COST. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THEN WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THE COST PER SQUARE FOOT FOR CIRM. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: DEBORAH'S POINT IS WELL TAKEN. THE MOTION IS PASSED. WE'RE ON TO THE NEXT TOPIC. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I THINK DEBORAH'S POINT IS WELL TAKEN. THE MATCHING FUNDS EXCEED THE TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION, WHICH IS A HUGE POINT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: A HUGE POINT AND A TALKING POINT FOR THIS ONE BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL ASK. IT'S A LEGITIMATE LINE OF INQUIRY. | ||||||||
| LET'S TALK ABOUT THE TECHNIQUES COURSE. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: ON THE TECHNIQUES COURSE, YOU HAVE APPROVED, BASED ON THE RED LINE AND THE FACT WHERE THOSE SCORES ALIGN WITH THE RED LINE, EIGHT PROPOSALS. THE DISTRIBUTION OF THOSE ARE ONE IN SAN DIEGO, ONE IN DAVIS, FOUR IN SAN FRANCISCO, ONE IN IRVINE, AND ONE IN LOS ANGELES. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: EIGHT? THEY DON'T ALL HAVE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM. WHICH ONE DOESN'T? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: REGENERATIVE SCIENCES. | ||||||||
| MS. LEWIS: THIS ONE DOESN'T. SALK. | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: THERE'S NO CAPITAL OR EQUIPMENT COST, BUT THERE IS COST IN PART 1 THAT ARE THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: ARE WE WITHIN THE SPENDING LIMIT WHERE WE'RE DELEGATED OR WHAT WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SPEND, MR. KELLER? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: WE'RE WITHIN THE SPENDING LIMIT. I GUESS THE ISSUE THAT THE WORKING GROUP NEEDS TO DISCUSS IS THE FACT THAT THE RFA, NOT ONLY WAS THERE A BUDGETS FOR DOLLARS, THERE WAS A BUDGET FOR AT LEAST A TARGET OF FIVE STEM CELL COURSES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THAT WAS THE WAY -- THE RFA REQUESTED THIS OPTIONAL COURSE WITH THE INTENT OF AWARDING FIVE. SO YOU WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY OVER THAT. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: HOW MANY LABS WAS IT? | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: FIFTEEN. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: CAN I MAKE A COMMENT? I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE DENSITY IN THE SAN FRANCISCO AREA, AND IT SEEMED TO ME THEY WERE RELYING ON SHARING THESE RESOURCES WITH THE SAME INSTITUTIONS. THEY WERE ALL SAYING I WOULD SHARE WITH STANFORD OR I'D SHARE WITH UCSF. IT SEEMED LIKE THERE WAS A DOUBLE COUNTING OF SHARING. AND IF WE HAVE TO DROP ANY OF THEM OFF -- BECAUSE ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS, I THINK THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO NAME THE INSTITUTIONS THEY WOULD SHARE WITH, AND THEY DIDN'T ALL DO THAT. THEY JUST CITED THE FACT THEY WERE NEAR A LOT OF INSTITUTIONS. SO IT SEEMED TO ME THOSE COULD MAYBE DROP OFF BECAUSE THEY SEEMED THEY WERE TRYING TO TRAIN THE SAME PEOPLE OR SHARE WITH THE SAME PEOPLE. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THEY, IN FACT, DID NAME THE INSTITUTIONS. AND THAT, IN FACT, WE HAVE LETTERS THAT BACK THAT UP FROM THESE INSTITUTIONS SO THAT THEY ACTUALLY GOT COLLABORATIVE LETTERS. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: WE DIDN'T SEE THAT. I WAS JUST GOING BY SOME GENERAL REFERENCE THAT THEY COULD SHARE WITH THESE INSTITUTIONS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IN THE BIGGER FILE, IT DOES HAVE THE BACKUP LETTERS. | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: BE CAREFUL. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S PART OF THE PART 1 APPLICATION? BE CAREFUL. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: I DIDN'T SAY ANY NUMBERS. YOU'RE RIGHT. BUT I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT THAT, AGAIN, WHEN WE GO TO MAJOR FACILITIES, THAT IN OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION WE BE AWARE OF DOCUMENTATION. THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL. WE'RE LEARNING SOMETHING HERE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: MS. HOFFMAN, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? | ||||||||
| MS. HOFFMAN: I WAS GOING TO SAY EXACTLY WHAT GENERAL COUNSEL WAS GOING TO SAY, THAT IT WAS, INDEED, IN PART 1, AND THAT SOME HAD LETTERS AND SOME DID NOT. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: IT IS IMPORTANT JUST CONCEPTUALLY THAT VARIOUS INSTITUTIONS HAVE PARTICULAR EXPERTISE IN DIFFERENT AREAS. SO THAT THE FACT THAT WE MIGHT -- IF WE'RE ABLE TO FUND MORE COURSES, AS LONG AS AT THE ICOC WE SEE THAT THERE'S LEGITIMACY TO THE DIFFERENT EMPHASIS OF THOSE COURSES. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: SO WE COULD SAY WE APPROVE A HIGHER AMOUNT, BUT SOMEONE SHOULD LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT THAT HIGHER AMOUNT PROVIDES A FULL COMPLEMENT OF THE DIFFERENT EXPERTISES SO THAT THE FOUR IN SAN FRANCISCO ARE DIFFERENT? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: THAT MAKES SENSE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: JEFF, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: I DID. I GUESS I HAD A DIFFERENT VISION OF WHAT THIS WORKING GROUP WOULD BE DOING VIS-A-VIS THE TECHNIQUES COURSE, AND I REALLY SAW THIS MERELY AS A FEASIBILITY. I THINK THAT THIS IS 90 PERCENT SCIENCE IN MY MIND. AND I JUST DON'T SEE --ONCE WE'VE DECIDED TO FUND THE SHARED LAB, WHICH IS THE REAL FACILITIES MEAT OF THE TECHNIQUES COURSE, THEN REALLY THE OTHER CONTENT EVALUATION SEEMS TO ME TO BE A SCIENTIFIC ISSUE. SO I PERSONALLY AM NOT, YOU KNOW, GETTING INTO WHETHER TO FUND ALL OF THEM OR NOT. I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S A LOT WE HAVE TO SAY ABOUT IT OTHER THAN WHETHER OR NOT IT'S FEASIBLE WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE SPACE THAT THEY PUT OUT THERE. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I WAS -- YEAH. I THINK THAT'S ON POINT. WE SPENT THE BULK OF OUR TIME DISCUSSING THE SHARED SPACE ASPECT OF THESE APPLICATIONS, AND WE DIDN'T SPEND AS MUCH TIME ON THE TECHNIQUES. AND I THINK THAT WAS FOR A REASON. MOST OF THEM HAD TO DO WITH SHARED LAB SPACE, BUT ALSO OUR FOCUS IN THE AREA OF EXPERTISE WITH THE EXPERTS ON THIS COMMITTEE HAVE TO DO WITH REAL ESTATE ISSUES, NOT TECHNIQUES COURSE ISSUES. SO IF WE ARE GOING FUND SOMETHING WITH A SHARED LAB AND IT HAPPENS TO HAVE A TECHNIQUES COURSE ASSOCIATED WITH IT, AND IF IT MEETS THIS MINIMUM THRESHOLD, IT'S DOABLE, IT'S FEASIBLE, THEN I SAY WE OUGHT TO FUND IT AND NOT GET INTO WHAT THE CURRICULUM LOOKS LIKE. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I WOULD SECOND THAT. ARE YOU MAKING THAT A MOTION? | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: NO. AS CHAIR, I WON'T MAKE ANY MOTIONS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: I'D LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION TO FUND ALL THE STEM CELL TECHNIQUES COURSES WITH A 73 SCORE AND ABOVE. | ||||||||
| MR. SHEEHY: DON'T WE HAVE CONFLICTS? | ||||||||
| (MEMBERS SHEEHY AND FEIT HAVE CONFLICTS AND HAVE LEFT THE ROOM.) | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: MAY I ASK THE COUNSEL A QUESTION? COUNSEL, IN YOUR OPINION, HAVE I HEARD ENOUGH ABOUT THIS ISSUE TO VOTE ON IT INTELLIGENTLY? I WASN'T HERE PRIOR TO -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: YOU DIDN'T MISS ANY SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION. YOU CAN VOTE. | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: MR. CHAIR, CAN I ASK FOR A CLARIFICATION ON THE MOTION. IS THIS A MOTION TO FUND ALL THE TECHNIQUES COURSES FROM INSTITUTIONS WHICH HAVE RECEIVED A SHARED LAB SCORE OF 73 OR ABOVE? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. SO THE MOTION IS BEFORE US. IS THERE A SECOND? | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: SECOND. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: SECOND FROM DR. WRIGHT. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? SEEING NO DISCUSSION, I'LL ASK MS. KING TO CALL THE ROLL. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: ROBERT KLEIN. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: YES. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: JOAN SAMUELSON. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: NO. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: YES. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: JANET WRIGHT. | ||||||||
| DR. WRIGHT: YES. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: DEBORAH HYSEN. | ||||||||
| MS. HYSEN: NO. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: EDWARD KASHIAN. | ||||||||
| MR. KASHIAN: YES. | ||||||||
| MS. KING: DAVID LICHTENGER. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: YES. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: MOTION CARRIES. | ||||||||
| IS THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS BEFORE US ON THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW? I THINK WE'VE COMPLETED OUR TASK. I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE. WE SPENT SO MUCH TIME ON THE TECHNICAL SIDE, BUT IT REALLY BORE SOME RESULTS, I THINK. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT JOB. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: I ALSO WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR HELPING US ALONG THE WAY THROUGH THIS PROCESS. I KNOW THAT THE ICOC WILL BE PLEASED WITH OUR EFFORTS. THEY'LL BE CONFRONTED WITH A DIFFERENT SET OF CHALLENGES, AND THAT IS WHAT TO MAKE OF WHAT WE HAVE GIVEN THEM AND WHAT TO MAKE OF WHAT THE SCIENTISTS HAVE GIVEN. THEY'RE WELL EQUIPPED, TRUST ME, THEY'RE WELL EQUIPPED TO DEAL WITH IT. AND I'M CONFIDENT THAT ONCE THEY'VE MADE THEIR DECISION AND IT TRICKLES BACK TO THIS FACILITIES WORKING GROUP, WE'LL APPRECIATE AND SEE THEIR WISDOM AND BE PLEASED WITH THIS ROUND OF GRANTS. AND IT HAS AND WILL ACCOMPLISH ITS PRIMARY OBJECTIVE, AND THAT IS TO FUND AND NIH-FREE SPACE AND TECHNIQUES COURSES. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU, MR. VICE CHAIR, I'M GOING TO TAKE BACK THE CHAIRMANSHIP TO END THE MEETING. WE HAVE TWO ITEMS LEFT. | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: YOU DON'T TAKE ANYTHING FROM ME. I HAND IT BACK. | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: MR. CHAIR, JUST A REMINDER BEFORE YOU CLOSE THE MEETING, PUBLIC COMMENT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THAT WAS EXACTLY THE -- I'D LIKE TO INVITE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS, AND PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES OR LESS. PLEASE STEP UP TO THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME AND AFFILIATION, PLEASE. | ||||||||
| MR. SIMPSON: IT'S STILL JOHN SIMPSON AND STILL FROM THE FOUNDATION FOR TAXPAYER AND CONSUMER RIGHTS. I JUST -- HAVING WATCHED ALL OF THIS, IT DOES SEEM TO ME THAT YOU FOCUSED ON WHAT I UNDERSTOOD THE COMMITTEE TO BE FOCUSING ON, WHICH WAS PURELY THE TECHNICAL FACILITIES FEASIBILITY. I SUSPECT AS THAT GOES FORWARD, THERE WILL BE THE SCIENCE COMING, AND THAT MAY, INDEED, PRODUCE WHAT I LIKE TO CALL FULL, FAIR, FRANK EXCHANGES OF VIEWS AT THE ICOC, BUT THAT'S PART OF THE PROCESS, I THINK. SO THIS SEEMS TO ME TO BE, NOT THAT YOU NEED TO HEAR IT FROM ME, BUT IT SEEMS TO HAVE WORKED THE WAY IT SHOULD BE WORKING. ALTHOUGH I HAVE TO SAY THAT IT MIGHT HAVE GONE A LITTLE EASIER IF SOME OF THE SCORES BY EVERYBODY WERE SPOKEN OUT LOUD DURING THE PROCESS. THAT MIGHT HAVE MADE IT EASIER FOR YOU ALL TO UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER. | ||||||||
| JUST A QUESTION. IS THERE MORE TOMORROW? | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THERE WILL BE MORE. IF YOU WAIT A COUPLE MINUTES, I'LL TELL YOU WHAT THAT WILL BE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION, YOUR PUBLIC COMMENTS. WOULD ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC LIKE TO SPEAK? OKAY. SO, TAMAR. | ||||||||
| MS. PACHTER: ONE REMINDER FOR THE MEMBERS. IN YOUR BOOKLETS PLEASE MAKE SURE, BEFORE YOU HAND THEM IN TO STAFF, THAT YOU HAVE SIGNED THE AFFIRMATION, THAT YOU DIDN'T VOTE ON ANY MATTERS FOR WHICH YOU ARE CONFLICTED. IT'S THE LAST PAGE IN YOUR BOOKLET. MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE SIGNATURES THAT BELONG IN THE BOOKLET ARE THERE, SO WE HAVE THEM FOR OUR RECORDS FOR THE AUDIT. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU, TAMAR. | ||||||||
| SO I JUST HAVE TWO THINGS LEFT. SO WHAT TIME DO WE WANT TO RECONVENE TOMORROW MORNING? DOES IT PLEASE MEMBERS -- WE HAVE, WHAT, TWO ISSUES LEFT. WE HAVE THE DISCUSSION OF FUTURE FACILITIES GRANTS AND ALSO THE DRAFT FACILITIES ADMINISTRATION POLICY. | ||||||||
| MR. KELLER: THEY WERE AGENDIZED TO BEGIN AT 9 A.M. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: SO WE RECONVENE TOMORROW AT 9 A.M. BOB, YOU HAVE A COMMENT? | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: SINCE WE'RE GOING TO GET ANOTHER LOOK AT THE GRANT ADMINISTRATION POLICY, I THINK; IS THAT CORRECT? SO IT IS GOING TO BE VERY IMPORTANT TOMORROW TO TAKE WHAT WE'VE LEARNED FROM HERE IN TALKING ABOUT THE CRITERIA FOR THE MAJOR FACILITIES AND GETTING ENOUGH INFORMATION OUT THERE THAT WE CAN HELP DEVELOP THE AGENDA FOR THESE PUBLIC MEETINGS. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: GREAT. THANK YOU, BOB. I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE COMMENT TO THE WORKING GROUP, ESPECIALLY DEBORAH, BECAUSE I HEARD WHAT YOU SAID ON A FEW OF THESE ISSUES, AND I ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT. I THINK WHERE POTENTIALLY THE CONFLICT IS THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS COMMITTEE REALLY IS BRINGING ITS FACILITIES AND REAL ESTATE EXPERTISE IN TERMS OF THE RANKINGS, AND IT ISN'T OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO JUDGE THE OTHER ITEMS, SUCH AS THE SCIENTIFIC AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. SO I THINK AS MUCH AS WE MAY WANT TO PLAY THAT ROLE, THAT REALLY ISN'T WITHIN OUR PURVIEW AND RESPONSIBILITY. SO -- | ||||||||
| VICE CHAIRMAN SERRANO-SEWELL: UNDER THE PROGRAMMATIC WE CAN. UNDER PROGRAMMATIC, FOR THE RECORD, UNDER THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW, WE CAN CONSIDER ANYTHING -- NOT ANYTHING WE WANT. WE DON'T INFRINGE ON THE JURISDICTION OF ANOTHER WORKING GROUP, BUT WE CAN ESTABLISH FOR OURSELVES FOR THIS NEXT ROUND, DAVID, ON THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW, IF THERE IS ONE, IF WE DECIDE TO DO ONE, WHAT CRITERIA AND WHAT ISSUES WE WISH TO DISCUSS THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THOSE APPLICATIONS. | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: AT LEAST WE CAN RECOMMEND THAT TO THE ICOC. | ||||||||
| MS. SAMUELSON: I HAVE A THOUGHT ON THAT, BUT I'M GOING TO SAVE IT FOR TOMORROW. | ||||||||
| CHAIRMAN LICHTENGER: THAT'S FINE, JOAN. WE CAN SAVE IT TILL TOMORROW. SO WE'LL RECONVENE TOMORROW AT 9 A.M. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ATTENDING. | ||||||||
| (APPLAUSE.) | ||||||||
| MR. KLEIN: WE SHOULD THANK THE VICE CHAIR, DAVID SERRANO-SEWELL, FOR LEADING US THROUGH THE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW. | ||||||||
| (THE MEETING WAS THEN RECESSED AT 8:45 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 PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL FACILITIES WORKING GROUP TO THE INDEPENDENT CITIZEN'S OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE OF THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE IN THE MATTER OF ITS REGULAR MEETING HELD AT THE LOCATION INDICATED BELOW | ||||||||
|
||||||||
| 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. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
Facebook Updates 
YouTube Videos 
Twitter 
Flickr Images
LinkedIn
Research Blog
RSS Feeds
