School Facility Program Review Fall Conference Responses from Membership SUMMARY OF NEW PROGRAM CONCEPTS COLLECTED FALL CONFERENCE BREAK-OUT SESSION OCTOBER 17, 2012 The final activity at the Fall Conference in Costa Mesa was a break-out session designed to seek input from members on ideas to improve the State School Facility Program (SFP). The break-out session yielded responses that were reviewed and discussed at the conclusion of the activity with the assembled conferees. A summary of the break-out session input is provided below. The synthesis of the ideas generated is provided according to the existing SFP categories. Included also are responses to the research presented at the Fall Conference by Dr. Jeff Vincent from the Berkeley Center for Cities and Schools. Ideas of C.A.S.H. Members for the Creation a New School Facility Program New Construction Definition of Classroom The need for a new definition of classroom was identified. This was seen as fundamental and requiring a specific focus within the program. The California Department of Education (CDE) is seen as the appropriate authority to address the issue. Flexibility is believed needed for CDE to dialogue with and eventually concur with school districts on what areas within a school plan are classrooms. It was noted that agreement between state agencies about classroom definition is currently lacking within the program. Eligibility for New Construction: Base-Line of Classroom Capacity It was suggested that there is a need to establish the 1 st time the seat was built for students. The date of occupancy should be assumed to be one year following the date of the approval of plans by the Division of the State Architect (DSA). This concept was seen as fundamental both for establishing a baseline of existing facility classroom capacity as well as providing adequate facilities for accommodating future student growth and future program needs. An existing school building may have been altered to accommodate changing program needs at the site; the applicant district s determination of existing classrooms within a building may not conform to prior baseline data filed with the state under the Lease- Purchase Program (LPP) or the School Facility Program (SFP). It was suggested that this should be reviewed and adjudicated by CDE using plans and specifications available. Base-line Factors of the New School Facilities Program The base-line factors of importance to allow eligibility for new construction should take into consideration the need for new schools and the need for new infrastructure on existing campuses. Such should include: 1. Age of buildings on the campus 2. Adequacy of restrooms on the campus 3. The construction type and condition of the buildings on each campus: a. AB 300 designated buildings b. Portable buildings in use as classrooms or instructional support c. Portable buildings in use as food service, multi-use;
d. Non-conforming buildings in use 4. Age of the underground infrastructure on the campus (water and sewer lines) 5. Age of the building improvements, such as major repairs, modernization, or rehabilitation on each campus 6. Any DSA approved construction under local, state or federal funding 7. The serviceable nature of the classroom infrastructure 8. The serviceable nature of the non-classroom infrastructure 9. The adequacy of off-site infrastructure at the site 10. The impact of environmental/external factors on the use of the school site (health and safety) 11. Overcrowding factors based upon a reasonable standard 12. The cost-benefit of the preservation of existing buildings Modernization The Re-Review of Prior Modernization Work and Eligibility It was suggested that the modernization clock must be reset to allow greater access to adequate state funding for previously modernized school buildings. For existing building capacity any modernization funded under the state LPP or the SFP or major work requiring the approval of DSA should be documented with major building modifications noted. Existing deficiencies then must be documented. Program reform must either ignore all previous modernization done under state funding approvals or must provide a second or additional modernization funding level that is substantial enough to address major needs of the campus. It is noted that the modernization program began in 1982 with eligibility for school buildings of at least 30 years to qualify for funding; that was changed to 25 years in 1998. A 50 year old building age category was added to the SFP in 2002. Focus on Actual Need of Buildings The focus of the modernization program must be on actual need rather than a cookie cutter funding mechanism as currently utilized. An estimate of the funds required addressing the reality of the conditions of school building must be at the core of the modernization reform program. The structural, fire and life safety, access compliance requirements of code as well as the mechanical, lighting, roofing systems and other building components must be assessed with repair/replacement estimates of the project being directly linked to the funding allocation rather than a per pupil grant. Such program reform will actually provide a means of addressing Williams issues, facility hardship and the seismic reviews and repairs/replacement intended by AB 300. Educational Program and Facility Linkage The new modernization program must also have a relationship to the educational program requirements of the building/schools; such must be included in the core of the modernization reform program funding. Under the modernization reforms the educational program needs and facility needs of the various programs including pre-kindergarten, career technical education, special education, class size reduction and specialty classrooms for science and technology can be more adequately addressed. Overcrowding Relief Grants (ORG) It was stated by some that this program is not relevant for the needs of today. Others stated that the ORG program must be retained and restructured so as to be more agile with a closer look given to the other overcrowding conditions of existing buildings other than classrooms and on school sites. Consideration should be given to a blending of the ORG and Modernization programs to allow districts to reconstruct/rebuild and if needed, to build new areas through the use of a weighting formula.
Seismic Seismic needs should be part of the baseline building evaluation for Modernization. The AB 300 criteria should not be separate and distinct; the building structural safety and other needs must be part of the overall school project evaluation as noted above. The evaluation must take into consideration each building, the entire compliment of buildings and how these function to serve the school population and programs and the site itself. Career Technical Education (CTE) This program should be retained and incorporated into the New Construction and Modernization Programs as educational improvements required at the school to meet program needs. Applications for SFP funding currently requires documentation related to CTE when not included in a project. High Performance Incentive Grants This should be retained, streamlined and should be included in the base grant. The current justification for program consideration and funding is much too extensive. It deters rather than incentivizes. If the High Performance Incentive Program remains as an add-on component of the program for new construction and modernization such should include a funding calculation directly related to the cost of sustainable components or actions sought through the HPI program. Joint Use Cities and schools should be community centers and resources to a greater extent than they are now. There should be in law the ability to cultivate private funding. The exploration of the alignment of school construction with private development must be encouraged. Private funding and corporate sponsorship of CTE should be incentivized. Charter These are now a political reality. As such charters should not have a set aside of funds; charters should be part of the regular SFP funding categories. Summary The emphasis of the new program should be on rebuilding and reusing existing facilities. New construction is important however the preservation and improvement of existing stock is critical. The establishment of a base-line of existing school infrastructure should give consideration to and focus upon the following categories: a. Adequacy of the site b. Classroom Capacity: A. Adequacy for use B. Suitability for the instruction program c. Non-classroom building adequacy for need intended d. Capacity of the facility to support the educational program
The evaluation of the classrooms, the ancillary facilities and the school site should determine whether the infrastructure should be eligible for renewal or for replacement-construction (complete replacement of one or more buildings or replacement of more than 50% of the buildings and underground infrastructure at the site). Replacement of the school stock that has exceeded the replacement value should be determined using the 50% replacement value measure in Title 24 for reconstruction. If a building or school no longer meets the needs of the educational program the only economically efficient option may be replacement. The Modernization program should therefore allow for the option to teardown and rebuild. A new CCI should be allocated to renew/replace buildings. A new weighting formula created for overcrowding replacement issues as well as for the new modernization concepts of renewal and replacement-construction is needed. Additional funding will be necessary. The timeliness of funding the project should reflect the districts needs. The existing system of districts spending local funds (part of the local match contribution) to advance a project to construction readiness should be replaced. A more efficient process, modeled after the Critically Overcrowded Schools (COS) program, should be considered wherein the district applies for a preliminary apportionment for a specific funding level, demonstrates its capacity to fund the local share and is granted a reservation of future funding for a reasonable period of time such as 36 months. The district must reach the construction ready stage within the three years or lose the reservation of funds. This funding reservation mechanism would assure districts of state funding being available by matching local funds with actual state bond authority. The new program should recognize that many older projects will need to be phased for modernization or renewal. The funding mechanism should be create in such a manner to permit the apportionment and construction phases to be exercised flexibly to commence and complete a modernization or renewal project or other project on an active school site over a period of time recognizing that students cannot be easily displaced and that interim housing is expensive and should be avoided if possible. Replacing the existing Modernization statute with a program not be based upon a per pupil grant. The baseline inventory for the new Modernization program will need to be the district s responsibility. This baseline should be created to yield and document information on the condition of the entire school. Sustainable goals and green building standards could be addressed in the planning process using the information produced by the inventory. Such would then lead to the determination of a framework of minimum work to produce a safe, serviceable building rebuilt/renewed in order to meet the instructional needs of the programs to be conducted in the facilities. Life cycle funding incentives need to be created within the new program to encourage districts to make the planning decisions inclusive of sustainable goals and green building standards. Conditions and standards need to be benchmarked with objective rather than subjective standards. Districts would provide building condition assessments with the master plans and educational specifications filed with the state agencies as part of applications for state planning approvals and funding.
The current School Facility Program under-serves students, schools and districts by its fundamental structure. Coupled with the demise of the Deferred Maintenance Program a one size fits all modernization program will continue to fail to meet the needs of California s schools. The UC Berkeley Report: Responses from the field An Analysis of the 8 Recommendations 1. Statewide master plan for K-12 infrastructure a. Revenue stream for ALL of education b. Master plan for education c. Equity needs to be insured d. State vision, local flexibility, performance oriented 2. State to actively promote local planning that advances quality education and sustainable communities. a. #1 quality education b. Support local intergovernmental collaboration 3. Assemble necessary information to prioritize funding for facilities with highest need. a. Agree with FCI inc. educational adequacy b. State funded inventory and assessment tool 4. CDE: Title 5 a. Broaden definition of learning space 5. Set priorities to fund with highest needs. a. State backstop; but need to demonstrate local effort. 6. State funding participant in capital renewals adjusted by local wealth & effort. a. Demonstrated need & effort b. Weighted formula on specific priorities 7. Multiple Revenue Sources a. Public/Private Partnership b. Capital cost = to last decade in funding yet shift towards modernization focus c. Remodel: Capital/Operation trade offs considered d. Flexible use of funds 8. SAB a. Check on viability of the program through and annual report b. More communication then added responsibility/agent