Dec4

Food Service DTF
Meeting Minutes
December 4, 2000

Proposed agenda:

• Decision process
• Timeline extension
• Consultant's visit
• Town meeting planning

Chuck distributed a copy of his proposed agenda and thoughts on the decision process and overview of all of the different options for food service. The order of discussion was modified slightly.

Timeline Extension and Town Meeting
After the last DTF meeting, Chuck McKinney, Piper Kapin and Steve Trotter met to discuss their concerns regarding the deadline. It was decided that they wouldn't be able to make a fair recommendation by the 18th, and Steve agreed to shift the deadline to allow for more research.

Chuck proposed postponing the town meeting, originally scheduled for December 7, to January 24. By that time, Chuck will have something more to present; he hopes to present a document with the best model, outside opinions of the model, pros and cons, and some options. There was not a lot of enthusiasm among the students to have the town meeting this Thursday because of the school workload, so there was no objection to the postponement.

The town meeting will tentatively be planned for noon, January 24. Beckie Kjer will check on the availability of a meeting location. A Conference Services student will paint banners announcing the meeting; the banners will be hung on January 5 and additional advertising will be done approximately two weeks prior to the meeting.

Steve Trotter agreed to push out the deadline one month. The first meeting of the DTF is tentatively scheduled for January 8. (Piper will schedule and e-mail the DTF with meeting information.) The committee needs to have something ready to go out by the first of March or it will negatively affect the process.

Chuck has been doing research on whether or not to go self-op. He and Piper will have some options put into a format to start building the document collaboratively during the January 8 DTF meeting.

Consultant
Richard Wheeler of Fessel International, Irvine, California, will be visiting Evergreen December 7 for a one-day visit. He was one of the consultants recommended by the University of Washington group. He is a neutral party, with no affiliation to any vendors, and he specializes in helping clients to become self-op. Piper and Chuck will talk to him about the proposed model; he'll do an assessment of whether or not it is do-able, considerations the committee may be missing, etc.

During his visit, he will have a long, detailed walk-through of the physical site, spend time going over the budget line by line, and be briefed on Evergreen's culture ("beans and rice as opposed to hot dogs and fries"). There will be a question and answer session toward the end of the day (possibly 2:00-4:00 or 3:00-5:00) for the DTF members who would like to attend. Piper will e-mail the time of the session, based on Mr. Wheeler's departure time.

Survey
Chuck talked to Steve Hunter about random sampling and surveys. Steve said that they could do something with the request in February. There are other survey questions that have been distributed and approximately 200 have been returned. Malka will be analyzing 50 of those. The survey issue will be discussed again during the January 8 meeting.

Costs
Chuck will be talking with Steve Trotter regarding capital expenses. There is a question about whether or not a self-op system would be required to maintain the building and equipment. The vendors who have been here as our food services have paid the college a commission, which went toward maintenance and capital expenses. If a self-op is not paying that commission, where would the dollars come from? If we have a self-op, who will be paying the direct costs and the capital costs?

Facilities Services is responsible for providing utilities to the buildings, but once a problem occurs within that building, who is responsible for the costs involved? Under a private vendor contract, dollars are coming into the system to offset these costs; with a self-op, the college needs to be sure there are sufficient dollars available to pay for costs.

Under state law, we are restricted as to how we use our Facilities dollars. Also, legally, an auxiliary service must be 100 percent self-supporting. There are a number of models available; we need to look at the options and what can and will work for us, as well as the legal issues involved.

BJSS will do an appliance audit for Evergreen, which will be a major factor in the request for money. Most of the equipment is close to the end of its life expectancy and has not really been well maintained in the past. The equipment was purchased by the college; if it breaks, the college must repair or replace it. Some money ($60,000 per year) has been set aside in the proposal for maintaining and upgrading the equipment-not the facilities.

As an example of how fast the money can be spent, if a food court were to be incorporated, it would require at least $2 million for the serve court and the kitchen. On top of that, you would have the expense of chairs, carpeting, etc. If the college is to be responsible for that, it will not be happening-at least in the short term.

Food Services has not been put on any lists for funding yet. If we go self-op, we could still request funds, but we would need to document financial viability. Regardless of which option we decide upon, we need to put Food Services on the list. However, funding sources change dramatically depending on the option.

The DTF's charge is to identify the need. If a self-op is proposed that doesn't generate much money, the DTF needs to be specific about that.

This is the last DTF meeting until January 8.