Training for County Office Visits Required by Williams Legislation Facilities Update for 2007-2008...

Training for County Office VisitsRequired by Williams Legislation

Facilities Update for 2007-2008

Presented by:

California County Superintendents Educational Services Association

(CCSESA)

May 7 & 9, 2007

May 7 & 9, 2007California County Superintendents Educational Services Association

2

Williams Facilities Update Overview

Review changes in the Emergency Repair Program

Review definition of Good Repair Review Permanent Evaluation Instrument

and the rating system for 15 categories and overall site

Review how a County Superintendent may follow up on site visits


3

AB 607 - ERP EC 17592.72(a)(2) – Changes the

Emergency Repair Program (ERP) to include a grant program along with the current reimbursement program The current reimbursement program requires work

be funded by District and reimbursement request be approved before processing reimbursement

New grant program requires cost estimate of repairs to be completed for grant funding and audit of application upon completion of work

Waiting for the date the new ERP will be available


4

Emergency Repair Program Changes to the ERP resulting in the

creation of a grant program will eventually replace the current reimbursement program

Schools where API scores have improved to deciles 4 and above will no longer be eligible for ERP funding starting with new cohort.

ERP application submittal deadline for schools in this situation is June 30, 2007


5

ERP Grant Program – cont.

If a grant application is filed prior to June 30, 2007 projects can be completed after the school becomes ineligible (specific timeline identified in new regulations)

Request must be $5,000 or greater unless you can justify a lesser amount

Separate request for each school site, but you can now combine different types of projects on the same site to reach $5,000


6


Grant application should include: Site and contact information Year of original construction of the school What system or component needs to be

repaired/replaced? Do you propose to repair or replace the existing

system/component? Describe the health and safety threat problem at

the site.


7

ERP Grant Program – cont. Examples of documentation you may

submit to substantiate the health and safety threat Photos showing the problem Signed copy of the Interim Evaluation Instrument

identifying the problem Copies of complaints made by parents, students,

or staff referencing the problem Inspection report by a qualified individual(s) or

firm(s)


8


Other information to include: How do you plan to mitigate the health and safety

threat? Will Division of State Architect approved plans and

specifications be required for this project? Estimate of how much the project will cost,

including planning, testing/inspection, and construction costs (note OPSC discussion on approval of consultant fees)


9

ERP Grant Program – cont. Upon grant approval, an initial fund release

will be made (when?) Once the project is complete an

expenditure report is required to provide the final cost for verification

Actual cost will be compared to the grant amount to determine if money needs to be returned to the state or if additional funds need to be released to the District


10

Emergency Needs

From EC 17592.72(c)(1) – “Emergency facilities needs means structures or systems that are in a condition that poses a threat to the health and safety of pupils or staff while at school.”


11

Emergency Needs – cont. These projects may include, but are not

limited to: Gas leaks Nonfunctioning heating, ventilation, fire sprinklers,

or air conditioning systems Electrical power failure Major sewer line stoppage Major pest or vermin infestation Broken windows or exterior doors or gates that will

not lock and that pose a security risk


12

Emergency Needs – cont.

Types of projects - continued: Abatement of hazardous materials previously

undiscovered that pose an immediate threat to pupil or staff

Structural damage creating a hazardous or uninhabitable condition

Emergency facilities needs do not include any cosmetic or nonessential repairs


13

AB 607 – Good Repair

EC 17002(d)(1) – Definition of Good Repair 19 criteria areas are defined, similar to criteria in

the Interim Evaluation Instrument (IEI) categories, with some additions

New criteria areas include: Roofs, gutters and downspouts Overall cleanliness Unabated graffiti


14

Good Repair

As defined in Ed Code “Good Repair” means the facility is maintained in a manner that assures that it is clean, safe, and functional as determined pursuant to a school facility inspection and evaluation instrument developed by the Office of Public School Construction and approved by the board or a local evaluation instrument that meets the same criteria.


15

Good Repair Ed Code criteria

A. Gas systems & pipes B. Mechanical systems (heating,

ventilating and existing air conditioning) C. Doors & windows D. Fences & gates; locks & hardware E. Interior surfaces (walls, floors, ceilings) F. Hazardous & flammable materials


16

Good Repair criteria – cont.

G. Structural elements H. Fire sprinkler, fire extinguishers &

emergency alarms I. Electrical systems J. Lighting K. Pest or vermin infestation L. Drinking fountains


17


M. Restrooms N. Sewer systems O. Roofs, gutters & downspouts – new

category (visual inspection) P. Drainage issues Q. Playground equipment – new elements

including outside fixtures, seating, tables and equipment


18


R. School grounds, fields, walkways S. Overall cleanliness, unabated graffiti –

new category includes review that restrooms, drinking fountains, and food preparation or serving areas appear to have been cleaned each day that school is in session


19

AB 607 - PEI

EC 17002(d)(2)(A) – Development of a permanent inspection and evaluation instrument (PEI) Rating system of “good”, “fair” or “poor” for each of

the 15 categories Rating system of “exemplary”, “good”, “fair” or

“poor” for a summary of the entire site


20

AB 607 – PEI cont. EC 17002(d)(2)(B) – Development of a PEI

- continued Required to be in place by July 1, 2007 Therefore, recommendations to be brought to the

June 1, 2007 Implementation Committee Meeting With final document presented at the

June 27, 2007 State Allocation Board Meeting Brings Williams inspections in line with information

required in the School Accountability Report Card (SARC)


21

PEI Revisions to the Interim Evaluation

Instrument (IEI) completed by OPSC in January 2007 incorporated EC 17002(d)(2)(A) criteria

OPSC Working Committee with COE representation currently developing the PEI

Creating a format that all Districts and COEs could use for facility inspections (“Every school is a Williams school”)


22

PEI - continued LACOE model to be used by OPSC Rating system being developed that could

be used by all levels of inspection teams Quantitative vs. Qualitative ? Proposed system will tabulate the number

of deficiencies in each category to determine category rating, then tabulate the number of “good”, “fair”, “poor” ratings to determine the overall rating


23

PEI 15 Categories

I. Gas Leaks II. Mechanical Systems III. Windows/Doors/Gates/Fences (Interior

and Exterior) IV. Interior Surfaces (Walls, Floors, and

Ceilings) V. Hazardous Materials (Interior and

Exterior)


24

PEI 15 Categories – cont.

VI. Structural Damage VII. Fire Safety VIII. Electrical (Interior and Exterior) IX. Pest/Vermin Infestation X. Drinking Fountains (Inside and Outside) XI. Restrooms XII. Sewer


25

PEI 15 Categories – cont.

XIII. Playground/School Grounds XIV. Roofs (as observed from the ground,

inside and outside of the building) XV. Overall Cleanliness of the School XVI. Other


26

AB 607 – Follow up visits

Education Code (EC) 1240(c)(2)(K) – County Superintendent may follow up on a site visit County Superintendent may (emphasis added)

return to verify repairs are done County Superintendent may (emphasis added)

prepare a report documenting non compliance Reports may (emphasis added) be provided to the

governing board of the school district


27

Follow up visits cont.

If a report is made: Report shall be presented at a regularly schedule

meeting Report shall be posted on the COE Internet Web

site Report would be removed from the Internet Web

site when County Superintendent verifies the repairs have been completed


28

Follow up visits cont.

If no report is made: Then the responsibility for follow up is solely with

the District


29

Presentation Contacts Vinceena Kelly, AIA

Regionalized Business Services CoordinatorLos Angeles County Office of Education Ph: 562/922-8872 Fax: 562/[email protected]

Mamie StarrDirector, Operations/Support ServicesSan Joaquin Office of Education Ph: 209/468-9230 Fax: 209/[email protected]


30

Questions?

Training for County Office Visits Required by Williams Legislation Facilities Update for 2007-2008...

Documents

Transcript of Training for County Office Visits Required by Williams Legislation Facilities Update for 2007-2008...