Comprehensive Review Facilities Management

Vallejo City Unified School District Facilities Management Comprehensive Review November 2004 Administrative Agent Larry E. Reider Office of Kern County Superintendent of Schools Chief Executive Officer Thomas E. Henry Facilities Management Facilities in the Vallejo City Unifi ed School District were assessed by a team that included repre- sentatives of School Services of California, Inc., (SSC) PJHM Architects Southwest, Economic and Planning Systems, Inc., David Taussig and Associates, and Romero Management Associates. The fi ndings and ratings were based upon evidence accumulated during on-site observations, interviews with responsible individuals, and reviews of relevant documents, policies, processes, and procedures. The review team’s fi ndings indicate that the district is in need of improved communication, writ- ten processes and procedures, and cooperation between school sites and the central offi ce. A large number of standards were rated “not implemented” or “partially implemented” in the report. Many of the lower-rated standards shared the following characteristics: • Inconsistent handling of work orders and other documentation • Lack of documentation of processes • Lack of communication between central offi ce departments • Lack of communication between schools and the central offi ce • Lack of emphasis on preventive maintenance • Absence of a planned program maintenance program for building systems Additionally, school safety issues existed in the majority of schools visited. Typical areas of con- cern included: • Obstructions in hallways and walkways • Blocking of fi re doors and fi re barriers • Fire hazards • Lack of fi rst aid training among staff • Use of non-conforming portable buildings without State Allocation Board waivers The following areas were found to be exemplary: • Bid packages for construction and requests for proposals were handled well by the Pur- chasing Department • Procedures for community use of facilities were generally effective, especially the district designed scheduling and tracking system • Monitoring of bond capacity and assessed valuation provided by outside consultants was effective • The district manages the Deferred Maintenance Program well and in conjunction with the Measure A funds • The process used for selection of licensed architects and other professionals was thorough Facilities Management 1 The most frequent negative comments received from employees related to the work order sys- tem, the Maintenance Department, and the lack of communication relating to the performance of the work. Site administrators and some of the support staff reported disappointment with the lack of response by the Facilities Services Department. The disappointment stems from a computer- ized work order system that is not user friendly and is very slow in processing the request. Some of those interviewed mentioned that many work orders, even those noted as requiring health and safety repairs, take weeks for the work to be completed or for a response to the site informing them as to when the defi ciency would be corrected. There is also dissatisfaction by some staff regarding the fi nal product of Measure A moderniza- tion. The most often cited reasons for dissatisfaction were the scheduling of when projects will be completed and the lengthy punch lists with numerous defi ciencies that never seem to be cor- rected. If the district accepts incomplete work, correction of that work will eventually become the responsibility of the Facilities Services Department and will become a district cost. The scope of many of the work projects was so narrow as to ensure that only a portion of the true mod- ernization needs and expectations of the schools would be met upon project completion. Rapid infl ation in construction costs and the increased cost of compliance with myriad state and federal requirements may force the district to continue to reduce the scope of projects or to drop some altogether. Under the current support structure, once the modernization project is complete, the Facilities Services Department is expected to maintain the facilities. The department will not be able to do so within its existing resources. Lack of funds, inadequacy of properly trained staff, and absence of both a planned program maintenance system and a preventive maintenance system will result in insuffi cient maintenance of schools if changes in operations are not made. Documentation of Processes Governing Board Bylaw 9311 states that the most important function of the board is to establish policies that communicate direction for the operation of schools. However, the majority of the policies relating to facilities and maintenance were last adopted or revised in 1994 or 1995. The need for the Governing Board to update these policies is critical. The district needs direction from the board so that written, detailed administrative regulations and procedures can be developed. The district needs to develop written processes for all phases of facilities and maintenance. It was the exception rather than the norm that a process for facilities or maintenance was documented. While some of the processes are being implemented, there is, in most cases, little written documentation for employees to follow. In order to hold employees accountable for their performance and to provide adequate tracking of inventories and equipment, written procedures and documentation must be adopted and enforced. Communication between Central Offi ce Departments The two offi ces that should be working together collaboratively, rarely communicate. The Facilities Services Department, more commonly referred to as the Maintenance Department, and the Student Housing Department, more commonly referred to as the Facilities Department, 2 Facilities Management do not communicate well with each other. The result is poor coordination of modernization work and work orders that must be issued to fi x the items that were completed incorrectly or not included in the original bid. For example, expensive fi xtures have sometimes been included in specifi cations instead of standard fi xtures. This will require the district to purchase expensive repair parts, fi xtures, and light globes in the future. The different offi ces that are responsible for facilities, maintenance, and operations are not coordinated under one single administrator. This has resulted in untimely communication between the offi ces as to the progress of the projects and occasional confl icting priorities between construction/modernization and maintenance. Consolidation or closer coordination of these two functions is central to improving this situation. Communication between Schools and Central Offi ce Numerous comments and complaints were received from site personnel about voice mails, e- mails, and work orders that go unanswered. The current computerized work order system is not perceived as a viable tool for providing work orders to the Facilities Services Department. The program is slow, hard to sign on to, and uses numerous screens to get a work order submitted. Some employees choose to skip the program completely and either phone in the work order or fax in the written work order. Site administrators are never sure when and if a work order has been completed and cannot rely on the work order program to tell them its status. From the workers’ standpoint, use of the work order system is not consistent and workers are often asked to do work without the printed work order, which makes it diffi cult to know the specifi c work to be performed. Lack of a work order also eliminates the normal documentation of the issuance of supplies and equipment used on the project, as well as the tracking of hours for maintenance workers. A new work order system is being proposed by the Director of Facilities Services. Representatives from the school sites, as well as maintenance workers, should be included in the evaluation of any new program being considered before any decision is made to select and implement a work order system. Fire Hazards at School Sites At a majority of the sites visited, obstructions were observed in front of major hallway exits, making it diffi cult for students to enter and exit the schools easily. In case of a fi re or other emergency, the students would not be able to exit the building in an orderly fashion. The obstructions ranged from blue recycling barrels to boxes of instructional materials that appeared to have been there for some time. The majority of the campuses visited had fi re doors and fi re barrier doors in the middle of large hallways kept open with folded cardboard, door stops, and, in one case, drop down door stops affi xed to the doors. This is a violation of the fi re code and must be corrected immediately. At all sites where this condition was observed, administrators were informed of this requirement before the team departed. Facilities Management 3 The absence or inaccessibility of fi re extinguishers was a problem at many of the school sites visited. Additionally, blocked emergency exits and hallways and open fi re doors decreased fi re safety. Open, exposed, and blocked electrical boxes also presented fi re hazards at some sites. Staffi ng and Personnel Most of the people interviewed or with whom the team interacted were committed to Vallejo City USD and to the children and the community it serves. However, the effects of staffi ng and budget reductions made necessary by the district’s current fi nancial crisis were apparent. Staffi ng in support areas, including Student Housing and Facilities Services, appeared lower than in comparable districts. The pace at which the Facilities Management improvement plan is implemented will be affected by the limited staff time the district will be able to devote to implementing the recommendations. 4 Facilities Management 1.1 School Safety Legal Standard All school administrators should be thoroughly familiar with the California Department of Edu- cation, Civil Defense and Disaster Planning Guide for School Offi cials, 1972. [EC 32000-32004, 32040, 35295-35297, 38132, 46390-46392, 49505, GC 3100, 8607, CCR Title 5 §550, 560, Title 19 §2400] The California Department of Education no longer publishes the Civil Defense and Disaster Planning Guide for School Offi cials. This standard is no longer applicable. Facilities Management 5 1.2 School Safety Legal Standard The district includes the appropriate security devices in the design of new buildings as well as in modernized buildings. [EC 32020, 32211, 35294-35294.9, 39670-39675] Sources and Documentation 1. Board Policy 7230 2. Observation of buildings 3. Discussions with facilities staff 4. Discussions with maintenance/custodial staff 5. Discussions with site supervisor/support staff Findings 1. While listed in the index of policies, a copy of Board Policy 7230 did not exist. 2. The district has installed a variety of security devices (e.g., door sensors, motion detec- tors) in all sites. Perimeter (entry and hallway) sensors were typical rather than having sensors in specifi c rooms (such as computer labs). 3. All sites were served by Morgan Alarm. 4. Staff reported that these systems were well maintained. 5. Facilities Services reported that Morgan Alarm was not responding as required by con- tract and will be held to the contract. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Update board policies and administrative regulations regarding security devices. 2. Annually review district design standards to ensure that the continued incorporation of security devices meets the various needs of the district. 3. As modernization funds are available, upgrade and expand the use of the security systems to cover most, if not all, areas of each school site. 4. Establish a priority list of sites related to security issues in order to maximize the cost/ benefi t relationship when installing security devices. 5. Review and enforce the contract with Morgan Alarm. 6 Facilities Management Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 7 1.3 School Safety Legal Standard Demonstrate that a plan of security has been developed, which includes adequate measures of safety and protection of people and property. [EC 32020, 32211, 35294-35294.9] Sources and Documentation 1. Board policy 2. Safety plan documentation 3. Intrusion alarm system (Standard 1.2) 4. Exterior lighting (Standard 1.7) 5. Perimeter access and fencing 6. Visitor signage (visitors must report to offi ce) 7. Visitor log and identifi cation 8. Procedures for volunteers 9. Trespassing signage 10. Tobacco Free Zone signage 11. Key issuance procedures (Standard 1.5) 12. High school student identifi cation Findings 1. Board policies are at least nine years old. 2. A comprehensive safety plan was not reviewed. Board policies, requirements, and proce- dures provide a fairly comprehensive plan for safety in the schools. All sites had security systems. (See Standard 1.2.) 3. Exterior lighting was reported to be inconsistent (not adequate at all schools) and not al- ways maintained. 4. No site had complete perimeter fencing and access control. Sites had multiple entry points. 5. All but one site had at least one standard district sign directing visitors to the offi ce. How- ever, most sites had multiple site entrances and not all entrances had such signage. 6. Visitor logs and ID badges or stickers were consistently maintained and issued. All sites had visitor logs and visiting staff logs (e.g., maintenance). Not all sites had badges or stickers. One site had stickers that changed colors after 24 hours to prevent old stickers from being reused. 7. Volunteers are required to provide TB test results and be fi ngerprinted. Human Resources is dependent on site staffs to refer volunteers for approval. Some sites have forms. There are no controls to assure that sites have referred all volunteers for approval. 8. Trespassing signage was non-existent at school sites. Signs were found at district service sites. 8 Facilities Management 9. Tobacco Free Zone (TFZ) signage was visible at every school site. However, as with visi- tor signage, TFZ signs were not at all school entrances. TFZ signs were not evident at all central district service sites. 10. All sites had key control procedures. (See Standard 1.5.) 11. High school students were not wearing ID badges as required by BP 3515. Staff reported that this is true for the fi rst few weeks of school until all of the badges can be made. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Update board policies and administrative regulations. 2. Consider adopting a comprehensive safety plan. 3. Conduct an evaluation of exterior lighting for each site. Develop recommendations for additional lighting and for maintaining existing lighting. 4. Consider perimeter security fencing and limited access points for each school site. 5. Add visitor signage at each point of pedestrian entry to the school site, including path- ways from parking lots. 6. Continue requiring visitors, vendors, and contractors to sign the visitor log and identify workers. Consider the use of 24-hour visitor stickers at each site. 7. Develop a process to ensure that all volunteers follow the required procedures for ap- proval. 8. Consider adding trespassing signage to all school sites. 9. Add Tobacco Free Zone signage to each school entry point. 10. Provide additional resources to speed up the process of providing high school student identifi cation. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 9 1.4 School Safety Legal Standard Ensure that the custodial and maintenance staff are regularly informed of restrictions pertaining to the storage and disposal of fl ammable or toxic materials. [EC 49341, 49401.5, 49411, F&AC 12981, H&SC 25163, 25500-25520, LC 6360-6363, CCR Title 8 §5194] Sources and Documentation 1. Board policy 2. Hazard communication program 3. Availability of Materials Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) copies 4. List of hazardous substances on site 5. Evidence of training programs or sessions 6. Evidence of fl ammable storage cabinets in high school science areas 7. Evidence that chemicals are stored appropriately 8. Appropriate labeling on pipes and storage areas Findings 1. The Hazard Communication Program exists, but enforcement could not be confi rmed. 2. See Standard 1.23 for MSDS fi ndings. 3. Custodians relied on annual ordering sheets as their list of hazardous substances. 4. High school science rooms could not produce a chemical inventory. 5. High school science areas had the appropriate fl ammable storage cabinets and kept chem- icals appropriately separated. Open shelving was lacking seismic lips to prevent chemi- cals from falling off shelves in an earthquake (a potential hazard if chemicals mix). 6. Middle school science chemical storage was poor. The shelving did not have earthquake lips. Teachers noted that many chemicals are no longer used. No inventory was produced. 7. Some training of maintenance/custodial staff occurs each year. 8. Pesticide controls are good. 9. Storage rooms are labeled. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district should update board policies and administrative regulations. 2. The district should update the Hazard Communication Program. 3. The district should establish procedures to assure annual training for employees. 10 Facilities Management 4. All buildings and grounds staff, plant managers, and employees should receive in-service training on hazardous substances in their work area at the time of their initial assignment and whenever a new hazard is introduced into their work area. 5. Pursuant to Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 5194(e)(1)(A), a complete list of haz- ardous substances must be provided within the written hazard communication program, preferably with an indication of the work area where the substances are found. The dis- trict must develop such a list. 6. Provide the appropriate fi re department for each school with a list of hazardous materials stored on site (including science labs). 7. Outside contractors should be informed of hazardous substances that are present on the site. It is the contractor’s responsibility to disseminate this information to its employees and subcontractors. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 11 1.5 School Safety Professional Standard The district has a documented process for issuing master and sub-master keys. A district- wide standardized process for the issuance of keys to employees is followed by all district administrators. Sources and Documentation 1. Board policy and administrative regulations 2. Site observations 3. Interviews with site administrators and support staff 4. Interview with Director of Facilities Services 5. Interview with Manager of Buildings and Grounds Findings 1. Administrative Regulation 3515(a) states that all keys shall be issued through the offi ce of each principal. A receipt indicating the key number and the rooms or buildings the key opens must be noted. 2. The language regarding master and sub-master keys is not defi nitive. There are no penal- ties for improper issuance or use of master keys, and no direction for who is allowed to have a master or sub-master key. 3. The current practice is for all work orders for additional or replacement keys to be pro- cessed through the locksmith with the State Administrator approving all work orders prior to keys being cut or locks changed. 4. During the peak workload times, the locksmith uses one of the maintenance workers to remove key cores. This allows the locksmith to focus on keying or rekeying. 5. Of the sites visited, no uniform system of key control was in place. One site had the keys locked in the offi ce manager’s desk. Another school had a locking key box inside the school’s vault. Another school had a locking cabinet controlled by a single employee who signed all keys in and out. 6. There was no consistency among the sites for issuing keys to substitute teachers. One school simply put the classroom key in the substitute teacher’s folder with the under- standing that the key and folder would be returned at the end of the day. Another school had the secretary physically issue the key to the substitute and had the substitute teacher sign the key in and out in a log book. Another school did not issue keys to substitutes. The head custodian would escort the substitute to the room. 7. The issuance of grand and great-grand master keys was fairly consistent. All interview- ees were asked how many of these keys existed and who had control over them. In most cases, the interviewee had to revise his/her initial count and the list of who had each of the high-level keys. 12 Facilities Management Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Revise Administrative Regulation 3515(a) to provide specifi c key control standards. These standards should include proper storage of all spare keys in a secure, locking cabi- net; proper numbering so that if a key is lost, that it is not easily determined from the key which door it opens; and a standardized issuance process. 2. The wording regarding master keys should state that only school administrators and their offi ce staff and custodial crew are allowed to have master keys. Issuance of master keys to other staff must be approved by the Director of Facilities Services. 3. Continue the current practice of work order processing for the replacement of keys. 4. Buy locking key boxes for all school sites, install them in secure places, and require their use. 5. Develop a designation process for all keys so that only the locksmith and the designated site coordinator can determine which keys work in which locks. Do not put keys in small envelopes and write the door number or teacher’s name on the outside. This does not pro- vide proper security. 6. Establish a sign-in/sign-out system for all keys that shows who is being issued a key, which door it opens, who authorized the issuance of the key, and the date of issuance. Im- plement this system throughout the district and hold the school administrators responsible for the maintenance of the system. 7. Only district and site administrators should be allowed to issue and carry high-level keys. The district should annually verify those employees carrying grand or great-grand master keys. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 13 1.6 School Safety Professional Standard Bus loading and unloading areas, delivery areas, and parking and parent loading/unloading areas are monitored on a regular basis to ensure the safety of the students, staff, and community. Stu- dents, employees, and the public feel safe at all times on school premises. Sources and Documentation 1. Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 3543, dated April 26, 1995 2. On-site observation before, during, and after regular school hours 3. Bus schedules and routes Findings 1. There was no board policy in the district binder regarding the proper loading and unload- ing of students. Administrative Regulation 3543(a) discusses how the district must annu- ally provide safety instructions on the proper loading and unloading practices. However, the regulation does not provide any directions on the proper loading and unloading of students on a daily basis. 2. Of the sites observed, the monitoring by district employees or adult supervisors of student arrivals and departures was minimal or nonexistent. At one elementary school, a small loading/unloading area was designated but ignored by most parents; parents stopped in the middle of the street, dropped off the students, and left. Others stopped in the loading/ unloading zone and parked to walk their children to class. 3. At the majority of the schools, there is inadequate space available for the combination of bus loading zones and parent vehicles. This is a result of either limited street access or narrow streets. The result is parents letting children off across the street from the school and requiring them to cross the street unattended. While the majority of the students used the crosswalks, some parents did not observe the requirement to stop at the crosswalk while others exceeded the speed limit. One parent was talking on her cell phone and al- most entered the crosswalk while her daughter was attempting to cross. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Increase adult supervision at student loading and unloading areas for all K-6 sites. This can include the use of properly screened parent volunteers. 2. Assign adult supervision at all times students are on campus. This can include the use of properly screened parent volunteers. 3. Provide detailed reminders of the requirements for dropping off and picking up children at the schools. Reminders should include prohibition of parking in bus zones, observing speed limits in school zones, crosswalk requirements, and acceptable areas to drop the children. 14 Facilities Management Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 15 1.7 School Safety Professional Standard Outside lighting is properly placed and monitored on a regular basis to ensure the operability/ad- equacy of such lighting and to ensure safety while activities are in progress in the evening hours. Outside lighting provides suffi cient illumination to allow for safe passage of students and the public during after-hour activities. Lighting also provides security personnel with suffi cient il- lumination to observe any illegal activities on campus. Sources and Documentation 1. Board Policy 7110(a), dated July 20, 1994 2. Interview with Director of Facilities Services 3. On site observation before, during, and after regular school hours Findings 1. Board Policy 7110(a) states that, when determining the needs of a proposed new school, the district should consider the safety and welfare of students. However, there is no spe- cifi c mention of adequate exterior lighting of the school sites to provide security in park- ing lots or the exterior of the buildings. 2. The Facilities Services Department is not included in the design phase of new construc- tion and modernization. 3. The majority of the school sites visited had some lighting, but the majority of the exterior lighting is old and was not upgraded during the modernization of the schools. There is still a need for additional lighting, specifi cally for security during the evening hours in the parking lots while the public is using the sites for after school activities. 4. Many of the hallways and courtyard areas have minimal lighting, usually limited to a single light bulb behind a faded Plexiglas cover in the ceiling. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Develop a board policy regarding the amount of lighting that must be installed at all school sites and the priority for funding to enforce this policy. 2. Replace existing hallway lighting that does not provide suffi cient illumination. 3. Install additional exterior lighting on all walkways, courtyards, between buildings, and fi elds. 4. Replace all hallway lighting, which consists of standard light bulbs. 5. Replace all hallway light fi xtures with clear, vandal-proof covers to allow for full illumi- nation of the hallways. 16 Facilities Management 6. Install additional lighting in all courtyards that will allow for security during after-school activities and security surveillance. 7. Install lighting between buildings, such as portable classrooms, for security purposes. 8. Increase lighting in open fi eld areas to reduce possibility of loitering and allow for easier surveillance for security. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 17 1.8 School Safety—Graffi ti and Vandalism Abatement Plan Professional Standard The district has a graffi ti and vandalism abatement plan that is followed by all district employees. The district provides district employees with suffi cient resources to meet the requirements of the abatement plan. Sources and Documentation 1. Board Policy 5131.5 and Administrative Regulation 5131.5(a), dated July 20, 1994 2. Interview with Director of Facilities Services 3. Interview with Manager of Buildings and Grounds 4. On-site observation before, during, and after regular school hours Findings 1. The board policy focuses solely on the pupil penalties for graffi ti or vandalism. There is no mention of responsible administrators for handling the situation. The administrative regulation designates the Director of Facilities Services as the responsible party for the estimation of costs and the repair or replacement of the damage. 2. There are three parties who are supposed to report graffi ti and vandalism to the Facilities Services Department: the independent security company, the morning head custodians, and the site principals. Painters are dispatched by 6:30 a.m. so that the students don’t see the graffi ti. 3. There is no written graffi ti abatement plan. 4. There are no standardized paint colors to reduce the number of paints maintained in in- ventory. 5. The elementary schools had minor tagging noted by the review team. The number noted during the observations was not suffi cient to comment on in these recommendations. 6. The middle schools also had minor tagging and graffi ti. 7. During the high school campus observations, it was noted that the bathrooms were tagged and, in one case, cross-tagged. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Revise the current board policy and associated regulation to provide specifi c directions for the staff on how to handle the graffi ti in the schools. 2. Develop a written graffi ti and vandalism plan. 3. Provide annual in-service training to all site personnel responsible for the reporting and maintenance of the sites. 18 Facilities Management 4. Consider adopting a standardized districtwide paint scheme to reduce the variations of paint colors that must be inventoried by the painters. 5. Site operational personnel should also be provided with supplies to keep up with the mi- nor graffi ti challenges. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 19 1.9 School Safety Legal Standard Each public agency is required to have on fi le written plans describing procedures to be em- ployed in case of emergency. [EC 32000-32004, 32040, 35295-35297, 38132, 46390-46392, 49505, GC 3100, 8607, CCR Title 8, §3220] Sources and Documentation 1. Board policies 2. Emergency and Disaster Preparedness Plan 3. Evidence of disaster preparedness drills 4. First aid kits Findings 1. The board policy is more than 10 years old and does not address earthquake drills and nor intruder/lockdown situations. 2. Most sites reviewed had some emergency plan documentation available. Some sites were under modernization and did not have materials available. 3. Emergency and Disaster Planning guides are not consistently maintained at each school site. Different sites had different levels and ages of documentation (e.g., sections in par- ent/teacher handbooks, folders in classrooms, binders in main offi ce). 4. See Standard 1.10 for Fire Drills. 5. First aid and central offi ce emergency kits were well maintained. 6. Elementary classrooms had fi rst aid kits. 7. All sites reported that emergency training occurred at the fi rst staff meeting of the year. However, many schools were open and operating before the fi rst staff meeting and, thus, for the fi rst few weeks, some staffs did not have the annual emergency training update. Many sites that were under modernization and just moving in after summer construction work was completed, had not had a staff meeting to review how modernization temporar- ily affected the emergency procedures (such as exit routes or refuge areas). Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Update the board policies and administrative regulations regarding emergency, civil de- fense, and disaster planning, including intruder/lockdown situations. 2. Establish common emergency procedures that incorporate civil defense and disaster plan- ning. 3. Customize the emergency procedures plan for each site’s unique conditions. 20 Facilities Management 4. Adopt procedures to provide for an annual review and update of the emergency proce- dures plan. 5. Provide annual training for all staff regarding the location of the emergency procedure documents and fi rst aid kits. 6. Require staff orientation for emergency procedures prior to the start of school, particu- larly where modernization may have permanently or temporarily altered emergency pro- cedures. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 21 1.10 School Safety Legal Standard Fire drills shall be conducted at the following frequency: At least once each month in elementary schools; four times per school year in intermediate schools and twice every school year in sec- ondary schools. [EC 32000-32004, 32040, CCR Title 5 §550] Sources and Documentation 1. Board policy 2. Evidence of fi re drills Findings 1. The board policy was out of date and did not specify the required frequency for drills at the intermediate school level. 2. Fire drill logs were found at only one site. Various methods were used to document drills, such as notes on calendars and memos announcing the drills. 3. Elementary schools reported that drills were held monthly. 4. Middle schools reported that drills were held quarterly. 5. High schools were not consistent, with one school reporting that drills had not been held for two years. 6. Copies of fi re drill logs were not submitted to Risk Management as required by board policy. 7. The Fire Department does not monitor or review how fi re drills are conducted unless spe- cifi cally requested by a site. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Update the board policies and administrative regulations regarding fi re drills. 2. Adopt procedures to assure proper timing of fi re drills. 3. Adopt procedures to assure a common method of documenting fi re drills. 4. Adopt procedures to ensure reporting of fi res drills to Risk Management. 5. Establish procedures to ensure that Risk Management follows up with sites that do not report drills. 22 Facilities Management Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 23 1.11 School Safety Legal Standard Maintenance/custodial personnel have knowledge of chemical compounds used in school pro- grams that include the potential hazards and shelf life. [EC 49341, 49401.5, 49411, F&AC 12981, H&SC 25163, 25500-25520, LC 6360-6363, CCR Title 8 §5194] Sources and Documentation 1. Board policy 2. Hazard Communication Program 3. Availability of Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) copies 4. List of chemical materials and shelf life 5. Observation of science laboratories 6. Interviews with maintenance/custodial staff Findings 1. See Standard 1.4 for comments regarding the Hazard Communication Program. 2. See Standard 1.23 for comments regarding MSDS sheets. 3. High school science rooms could not produce a chemical inventory. 4. High school science areas had the appropriate fl ammable storage cabinets and kept chem- icals appropriately separated. Open shelving was lacking seismic lips to prevent chemi- cals from falling off shelves in an earthquake (a potential hazard if chemicals mix). 5. Middle school science chemical storage was poor. The shelving did not have earthquake lips. Teachers noted that many chemicals were no longer used. No inventory was pro- duced. 6. Training for employees in the handling of hazardous materials was not consistent. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Update board policies and administrative regulations regarding hazardous chemicals. 2. Implement recommendations noted in Standard 1.23 regarding MSDS. 3. Require high school science teachers to develop and maintain chemical inventory. 4. Install seismic lips on all chemical shelving. 5. Require middle school science teachers to inventory all chemicals and to properly dispose of all obsolete chemicals. For the remaining chemicals, install proper shelving, including seismic lips. 6. All buildings and grounds staff, plant managers, and faculty should receive in-service training on chemical compounds and hazardous substances used for instruction. 24 Facilities Management Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 25 1.12 School Safety Legal Standard Building examinations are performed, and required actions are taken by the Governing Board upon report of unsafe conditions. [EC 17367] Sources and Documentation 1. Board policy 2. Work order procedures 3. Interviews with maintenance/custodial staff 4. Interviews with site staffs 5. Site reviews Findings 1. Board policy generally requires a safe and healthful environment. 2. Work orders are used to report unsafe conditions. 3. Unsafe conditions receive the highest priority for work order completion. However, the response time from the Facilities Services Department varied between sites. 4. Sites reported that they did not receive any communication after a work order had been submitted, such as confi rmation that it was received, approval status, funding status, scheduling status. 5. Several substandard and potentially unsafe conditions were discovered on site visits (missing bolts on one playground apparatus, loose fi re hose cabinet cover, standing water at restroom entrance). Blocked emergency exit pathways were immediately corrected by staff. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Update board policies as needed. 2. Evaluate the effectiveness of the current work order system to address safety items imme- diately. 3. Adopt a communications procedure for work orders so that sites are aware of the status of the work orders that have been submitted. 4. Develop procedures for an annual inspection of facilities to ensure that site staff are re- porting all unsafe conditions. 5. Repair all substandard and potentially unsafe conditions immediately. If not able to repair immediately, tape off the hazard so that students and staff cannot become injured. 26 Facilities Management Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 27 1.13 School Safety Legal Standard Each school which is entirely enclosed by a fence or partial buildings must have a gate of suf- fi cient size to permit the entrance of ambulances, police and fi re fi ghting equipment. Locking devices shall be designed to permit ready entrance. [EC 32020] Sources and Documentation 1. Site observation of gates and locking devices 2. Interviews with maintenance/custodial staff 3. Interviews with Fire Department personnel Findings 1. All district sites inspected had access gates of suffi cient size to permit the entrance of emergency vehicles, equipment, and apparatus. 2. The Fire Department reviews gate entrances during modernization and portable installa- tion to assure emergency access. 3. The gates are designed to permit ready entrance by emergency personnel. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Continue compliance with Education Code Section 32020, and conformance review with law enforcement and fi re protection agencies. Standard Implemented: Fully - Sustained November 1, 2004 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: 28 Facilities Management 1.14 School Safety Legal Standard Sanitary, neat, and clean conditions of the school premises exist and the premises are free from conditions that would create a fi re hazard. [CCR Title 5 §633] Sources and Documentation 1. Board Policy 3515, dated April 26, 1995 2. Interview with Director of Facilities Services 3. Interview with Manager of Buildings and Grounds 4. On-site observation before, during, and after regular school hours Findings 1. Governing Board Policy 3515 describes security to include locking doors, minimizing fi re hazards, reducing the probability of faulty equipment, and guarding against electrical shock. 2. Some of the fi re hazards noticed during the site observations included: • Classrooms without fi re extinguishers. • Fire extinguishers were blocked from easy access. • Electrical boxes housing circuit breakers were unlocked and doors were open. • Electrical boxes in the classrooms were blocked by bookcases and other equipment. • Fire extinguishers were missing from designated areas where signage directed the reader to obtain the fi re extinguishers. • Large storage areas had no fi re extinguishers or designated extinguisher areas. • Large blue recycle containers were blocking main hallways. • Fire doors and fi re barrier doors were blocked open, negating their usefulness in providing fi re safety. • Classrooms with inadequate access within the classroom for students to exit the classrooms in case of an emergency. 3. Some of the sanitation hazards noticed during the site observations included: • Restrooms with standing water on the fl oors, creating a slippery surface and stench. • A few boys’ restrooms were so putrid that the inspector could not enter. • Ants in water fountain. • Some walkways need concrete ground down so that tripping hazard is reduced or eliminated. Facilities Management 29 Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The Governing Board should revise the board policy to delineate that all sanitation haz- ards are to be corrected immediately. 2. Any health and safety hazards must be reported immediately to the Facilities Services Department with a work order fi led to authorize the work to be performed. 3. The district should perform regular inspections of fi re extinguishers to make sure that they exist, are properly displayed, and have been properly charged and inspected. 4. The district should provide on site in-service training for all site operational personnel in the area of site safety and cleanliness. 5. Supervisors should periodically review the progress site personnel are making in keeping campuses safe and clean. 6. Supervisors should also emphasize the area of safety and cleanliness in the employee’s annual evaluation. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: 30 Facilities Management 1.15 School Safety Legal Standard The Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) requires periodic inspections of facilities to identify conditions. [CCR Title 8 §3203] Sources and Documentation 1. Board policy 2. IIPP Handbook, dated 1991 3. Interviews with staff Findings 1. A board policy specifi c to this standard was not found. 2. The Facilities Services Department had the Prevention Program (IIPP) manual. An IIPP manual could not be located at all sites. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Develop a board policy that specifi es the requirements of IIPP. 2. Emphasize to all staff the importance of the document. The site administrator should know the location, purpose, and use of the document and its contents. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 31 1.16 School Safety Legal Standard Appropriate fi re extinguishers exist in each building and current inspection information is avail- able. [CCR Title 8 §1922(a)] Sources and Documentation 1. On-site observation of extinguishers and tags 2. Evidence of inspections 3. Interviews with maintenance/custodial staff Findings 1. All sites visited had the appropriate fi re extinguishers in most buildings and rooms. 2. Most fi re extinguishers in visible, public areas had been certifi ed within the past 12 months. 3. Most fi re extinguishers in less visible areas, such as stages, kitchens, or mechanical areas, had been certifi ed within the past 12 months. 4. A minor number of mechanical or support areas did not have appropriate fi re extinguish- ers or the current inspection information available. 5. Gymnasiums were protected with fi re hose cabinets and not all hoses were present. 6. A few extinguishers in classrooms were missing or blocked by furniture. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Update current recharging and replacement procedures to ensure that all extinguishers on each site receive the required annual servicing. 2. Install appropriate fi re extinguishers in each building so that they are visible with easy ac- cess and have current inspection information available. 3. Provide a back-up extinguisher whenever an extinguisher is removed for service. 4. Provide a back-up extinguisher whenever an extinguisher is discharged. 5. Replace fi re hose cabinets with fi re extinguishers. 6. Establish a staff education and inspection process to assure that access to extinguishers is not blocked. 32 Facilities Management Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 33 1.17 School Safety Legal Standard All exits are free of obstructions. [CCR Title 8 §3219] Sources and Documentation 1. On-site observation of exits and exit paths 2. Emergency exit signage 3. Verifi cation of door operation 4. Discussions with local fi re offi cials Findings 1. A very minor number of exit signs were missing or in need of repair. 2. All sites inspected had working door hardware. 3. A number of fi re exit doors were propped open (classroom doors that open into corridors and corridor separation doors). 4. Most exit hardware has been replaced under modernization with panic hardware that can- not be locked closed (preventing exiting). A few locations had older push bar hardware, but no violations were found. 5. A minor number of exit pathways were obstructed. Obstructions were generally class- room furniture or trash cans located too close to the door and in the exit path of travel. 6. The Fire Department reviews sites only when construction occurs (e.g., modernization or installing portables) and does not do periodic reviews of sites. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Give high priority to work orders to repair or replace exit signs. 2. Ensure that all site staff are knowledgeable about the need to keep exits unlocked and free of obstructions and that fi re doors are not blocked. 3. Ensure that all site staff are knowledgeable about propping open doors. Interior doors that open into corridors may not be propped open. Corridor fi re separation doors may not be propped open. Magnetic hold-open devices or other devices tied to the fi re alarm system may be used to keep fi re doors open. Exterior doors may be propped open as long as site security is not a concern. 4. Continue to upgrade and maintain exit hardware to assure that the hardware is operating at maximum effi ciency. 34 Facilities Management 5. Periodically check classrooms for pathway obstructions. All obstructions should be re- moved immediately. Any large obstructions that cannot be easily removed should be re- ported to the Facilities Services Department for assistance. 6. Work with the local fi re department whenever a fi re path question arises. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 35 1.18 School Safety Legal Standard A comprehensive school safety plan exists for the prevention of campus crime and violence. [EC 35294-35294.9] Sources and Documentation 1. Board policy 2. School safety plan 3. Discussion with district and site staffs Findings 1. A number of board policies addressed campus crime and violence and were generally 10 years old. 2. The training of staff and the utilization of the prevention plan was inconsistent district- wide. 3. School safety plans were incorporated in staff packets, parent packets, and emergency procedures. They were not consistent at all school sites. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Update board policies and administrative regulations related to school safety plans. 2. Assure the annual updating, training of staff, and the utilization of information acquired for the plans and reports developed pursuant to Education Code Sections 35294-35294.9, to maintain the comprehensive school safety plan. 3. All plans must include the following key code requirements for a comprehensive school safety plan: • Status of school crimes committed on district campuses during district functions • Dangerous pupil notifi cation procedures • Strategies and programs for the maintenance of high levels of school site safety • Access procedures for students • Educational environment requirements • School discipline procedure • Sexual harassment policy 36 Facilities Management Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 37 1.19 School Safety Legal Standard Requirements are followed pertaining to underground storage tanks. [H&SC 25292, CCR Title 26 §477, Title 23 §2610] Sources and Documentation 1. Board policy 2. Discussions with district staff 3. Review of any existing tanks Findings 1. A board policy specifi cally covering fuel tanks was not found. 2. It appears that no underground fuel tanks remain. 3. Two above ground fuel tanks (gasoline and diesel) and one above ground used oil tank exist at the transportation yard. 4. None of the tanks had “No Smoking” signs posted (the entire site is a no smoking site). 5. The saddles on the diesel tank appeared to be too large. 6. The fuel dispensing pump did not have a “No Smoking” sign. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Adopt board policies and administrative regulations regarding above ground tanks. 2. Provide “No Smoking” signs as required by law and the local fi re marshal. 3. Review the saddles on the diesel tank for compliance. Standard Implemented: Fully - Substantially November 1, 2004 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: 38 Facilities Management 1.20 School Safety Legal Standard All asbestos inspection and asbestos work completed in the U.S. is performed by Asbestos Haz- ard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) accredited individuals. [EC 49410.5, 40 CFR Part 763] Sources and Documentation 1. Board policy 2. AHERA inspection reports 3. Interviews with Facilities Services staff Findings 1. A board policy specifi c to AHERA was not found. 2. Facilities Services has complete AHERA log books. The three-year AHERA recertifi ca- tion is due in 2005. 3. Not all of the Facilities Services staff were familiar with the proper handling of asbestos materials. 4. Very few school sites could locate their copy of the AHERA log book. 5. Some AHERA logs were located in the MSDS cabinets. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Adopt board policies and administrative regulations to ensure compliance with the AHERA laws. 2. Provide each site with copies of the asbestos management plan and three-year recertifi ca- tion. 3. Maintenance/custodial staff should be trained on the location, identifi cation, proper clean- ing, and ongoing maintenance of asbestos-containing materials. They should be trained in the removal and decontamination of small amounts of such materials when needed to re- pair pipes or perform small scope projects. Any extensive asbestos abatement work must be done by state-certifi ed asbestos abatement contractors in compliance with state and federal standards. 4. Place a copy of the AHERA report for each site in the MSDS cabinet. Facilities Management 39 Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: 40 Facilities Management 1.21 School Safety Legal Standard All playground equipment meets safety code regulations and is inspected in a timely fashion as to ensure the safety of the students. [EC 44807, GC 810-996.6, H&SC 24450 Chapter 4.5, 115725-115750, PRC 5411, CCR Title 5 §5552] Sources and Documentation 1. Board policy 2. On-site observation of playground equipment 3. Discussions with facilities staff 4. Discussions with maintenance and custodial staff Findings 1. Safety rules for playgrounds were not posted as required by BP 5142(a). 2. Most of the playground equipment appeared to have been replaced within the past few years. 3. Many elementary sites retained some older apparatus. One old apparatus had missing bolts and was immediately reported as a hazardous condition. 4. Additional cushioning material under elementary playground equipment was needed at most elementary sites. 5. The condition of paving surrounding the playground areas varied and, in one case, was poorly maintained and in need of replacement. 6. Basketball standards were in good condition. 7. The district appeared to be in general conformance with prevailing codes and regulations. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Enforce Board Policy 5142(a) by posting the safety rules. 2. Establish a maintenance program to keep the new playground equipment in good condi- tion. 3. Inspect the older apparatus regularly for loose parts. 4. Establish an annual preventative maintenance program to check for cushioning material, loose bolts, and maintenance needs. 5. Replace paving around the playground areas to ensure that path of travel (pavement around playground area) is safe. 6. Inspect and maintain the basketball standards to keep them in optimal condition. Facilities Management 41 Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: 42 Facilities Management 1.22 School Safety Legal Standard Safe work practices exist with regards to boiler and fi red-pressure vessels. [CCR Title 8 §782] Sources and Documentation 1. On-site observation of boilers and fi red pressure vessels 2. Maintenance logs Findings 1. Two of three boiler rooms were under modernization and were not operational. 2. The Plunge had a log of boiler maintenance. 3. Some boiler rooms did not appear to be used for storage. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district should develop work practices and procedures for boilers as follows: • On-site maintenance logs that contain complete descriptions of the maintenance of all system components, including sensors, controllers, actuators, etc. • The maintenance log descriptions should include the dates of inspections, periodic preventative maintenance and suggestions, and system/component failure diagno- sis. • The maintenance log descriptions should include procedures for the repair or re- placement of defective components. • Ongoing training for maintenance/custodial staff should continue on the general industry safety orders. • On start-up dates, the district should have on-site qualifi ed fi eld technicians to place the systems in operation, making such tests, adjustments, and changes as may be found necessary to insure the safe and successful operation of the equipment and systems. 2. The district should ensure that the modernized boiler rooms are not used for storage. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 43 1.23 School Safety Legal Standard Materials Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) are maintained. [EC 49341, 49401.5, 49411, F&AC 12981, LC 6360-6363, CCR Title 8 §5194] Sources and Documentation 1. Board policy 2. Hazard communication program 3. MSDS documentation 4. Interviews with Facilities Services staff Findings 1. Board policies were at least four years old. 2. Almost all sites had MSDS cabinets with empty binders. 3. Few sites had the appropriate labeling and MSDS available. 4. Most high school science rooms were newly modernized, with proper separation of chemicals. Some cabinets lacked doors and most shelving lacked earthquake lips to pre- vent spillage and potentially toxic mixing of chemicals in an earthquake. 5. Middle school science storage rooms were in disarray, with many chemicals that were not being used for instruction. Shelving lacked earthquake lips. 6. There is no method to determine when each MSDS Notebook has been updated. 7. Facilities Services had a complete set of MSDS sheets. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Update board policies and administrative regulations regarding MSDS. 2. When the district receives a hazardous substance or mixture, the district representatives should ensure that the manufacturer has also furnished an MSDS as required by law. In the event the MSDS is missing or incomplete, the district should request a new MSDS from the manufacturer and should notify the California Occupational Safety and Health Division (Cal/OSHA) if a subsequent completed MSDS is not received. 3. The district representative should maintain copies of the MSDS for all hazardous substances and ensure that they are kept up to date and available to all affected employ- ees. 4. The district should review each incoming MSDS for new and signifi cant health and safety information and disseminate this information to all affected employees. 44 Facilities Management 5. Should the district elect to convert to a computerized or fax-on-demand program, the district must ensure that up-to-date copies of the MSDS for all hazardous substances are available to all affected employees. The affected employees must be trained to operate the computers or fax machines that provide access to MSDS fi les. 6. All buildings and grounds staff, plant managers, and employees should receive in-service training on hazardous substances in their work area at the time of their initial assignment and whenever a new hazard is introduced into their work area. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 45 1.24 School Safety Professional Standard The district maintains a comprehensive employee safety program. Employees are made aware of the district safety program and the district provides in-service training to employees on the requirements of the safety program. Sources and Documentation 1. Board Policies 3514 and 4157 and associated administrative regulations 2. Interview with Director of Facilities Services 3. Interview with Manager of Buildings and Grounds 4. Copies of collective bargaining agreements 5. Observation of employees and safe practices Findings 1. The board policies and administrative regulations provided an overview of the require- ments for the district safety program. 2. The bargaining unit agreement articles contained wording regarding safety training and the requirements of the district. Section 9.1.6.10 through 9.1.6.12 in the certifi cated bar- gaining agreement has a long list of the daily, weekly, and periodic cleaning requirements for the custodial staff. 3. It is not clear which of the district administrators is primarily responsible for safety train- ing. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Update and expand current board policy. 2. Renegotiate cleaning requirements so that the certifi cated agreement does not contain any standards that are outside the scope of certifi cated bargaining. If cleaning standards must be established as a part of negotiations, they should be in the classifi ed bargaining unit agreement. 3. Designate by position, the district administrator responsible for meeting the board policy requirements. The district should assign one administrator for coordinating any safety meetings, as well as following up on the recommendations made at the meetings. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: 46 Facilities Management 1.25 School Safety Professional Standard The district conducts periodic fi rst aid training for employees assigned to school sites. Sources and Documentation 1. Board policy 2. Interview with Director of Facilities Services 3. Interview with Manager of Buildings and Grounds 4. Copies of bargaining unit agreements 5. Interviews with sampling of employees 6. Observation of employees and safe practices Findings 1. A copy of the board policy regarding a fi rst-aid training program or any related training materials was not available. 2. The bargaining unit agreement articles contain no wording regarding fi rst aid training and the requirements of the district. 3. It is unclear which of the district administrators is primarily responsible for fi rst-aid train- ing. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Create board policy and administrative regulation regarding minimum fi rst aid training for all district employees. 2. Review bargaining agreements to determine if existing wording for safe working condi- tions should be clarifi ed to include fi rst aid training. 3. Assign one administrator to coordinate the fi rst aid training. Standard Implemented: Not Implemented November 1, 2004 Rating: 0 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 47 2.1 Facility Planning Professional Standard The district has a long-range school facilities master plan. Sources and Documentation 1. Discussions with Director of Student Housing 2. District documentation Findings 1. The district has a districtwide School Facilities Master Plan. The plan was approved by the Governing Board of the district in December of 2000. Since that time, it appears that the district has made little progress in implementing recommendations made in the plan. The lack of implementation may be due to inadequate staffi ng in the Student Housing De- partment and turnover in administrative staff. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district should have the plan updated to refl ect recent enrollment trends, housing de- velopment patterns, and education programs required by the community. 2. The district should provide adequate staffi ng for the Student Housing Department and retain consultants with school facility planning and funding experience in order to imple- ment the fi ndings of the plan. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: 48 Facilities Management 2.2 Facility Planning Professional Standard The district possesses a California State Department of Education Facilities Planning and Con- struction Guide (dated 1991). Sources and Documentation 1. District documentation Findings 1. The district currently possesses a Facilities Planning and Construction Guide prepared by the California State Department of Education (CDE). Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district should periodically check the Internet web page of the CDE to see whether the Facilities Planning and Construction Guide has been updated, as well as to see wheth- er other guides associated with facilities planning and school construction have been cre- ated or updated. Standard Implemented: Fully - Sustained November 1, 2004 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 49 2.3 Facility Planning Professional Standard The district seeks state and local funds. Sources and Documentation 1. Discussion with Director of Student Housing 2. State Allocation Board Forms 50-01, 50-02, 50-03, and 50-04 3. Ballot language for Measure A (General Obligation Bond) 4. District documentation Findings 1. On March 4, 1997, by a majority vote in excess of two-thirds, the district was authorized to issue $133 million in general obligation bonds (Measure A). Measure A provided funds to (i) upgrade classrooms for modern technology, (ii) provide health and safety improve- ments in classrooms, (iii) repair and replace inadequate roofs, plumbing, heating, and ventilation systems, and (iv) renovate, acquire, and construct schools and school sites. 2. The district has submitted and the State Allocation Board has approved Forms 50-01, 50- 02, 50-03, and 50-04. Since the enactment of the School Facilities Program, the district has received funds from the state for the modernization of 20 facilities. In addition, the district has submitted 50-04 forms to receive modernization funding for other facilities. 3. The district has entered into agreements with land developers and merchant builders to mitigate the impacts caused by the construction of residential units. As a result of such mitigation agreements, the district has formed community facilities districts. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district should pursue all other local funds (e.g., redevelopment tax increment, miti- gation payments/alternative fees/statutory school fees, etc.) to the fullest extent possible. 2. The district should continue to submit Forms 50-04 to the State Allocation Board for eli- gible projects. 3. The district needs to prepare a School Facilities Needs Analysis in accordance with SB 50 to impose alternative fees on new residential construction projects. 4. The district needs to retain the services of a consultant with expertise in negotiating miti- gation agreements with land developers and merchant builders. The consultant retained by the district should not have worked with or be working with land developers and mer- chant builders. 50 Facilities Management Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 51 2.4 Facility Planning Professional Standard The district has a districtwide Facility Planning Committee in place. Sources and Documentation 1. Discussion with Director of Student Housing Services 2. Discussion with Director of Facilities Services 3. District Web page 4. Review of meeting minutes from the Bond Oversight Committee 5. Review of “The McGavin Report/Facility Needs Study,” October 2, 1996 Findings 1. The district has previously committed a signifi cant amount of time and resources toward the initial assessment of and planning for its facilities related needs. Much of the assess- ment is contained within a document referred to as the “McGavin Report.” The fi naliza- tion of this report and approval by the district board occurred in 1996. The fi ndings in- cluded within this facility needs study helped to form the basis of the local bond election, Measure A, which was successfully approved by the electorate within the district in 1997. 2. As a result of the successful passage of Measure A in 1997, the predominant process uti- lized by the district to plan for future facility projects was directed by a fairly diverse and representative group of administrators within the district. This group helped to determine recommendations to the board for the scope of respective projects and an overall hierar- chical schedule of implementation. The Director of Student Housing Services played a lead and integral role in this process. 3. The district continues to work very closely with its construction management fi rm, Van Pelt, to oversee the implementation of its facilities-related projects. 4. While the district appears to be doing a fairly good job of continuing its planning efforts for its diverse and far-reaching facilities-related projects, a couple of defi ciencies are ap- parent. First, there seems to be some disconnect from a planning perspective between the planning effort that occurred for the projects identifi ed within Measure A and the signifi - cant number of projects that have received state funding after the passage of Measure A. It appears that state funds are, in many instances, being used more to fi ll in project scope gaps that have resulted either from limited funds available through Measure A, or are being utilized to address a variety of unforeseen conditions that have been identifi ed as Measure A projects have commenced. Also, there seems to be some level of underrepre- sentation within the existing planning process. While there is a strong linkage between the district’s Student Housing Services staff and the district’s construction management fi rm, inclusion of other staff and/or community members in planning decisions appears limited. 52 Facilities Management Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. More resources and commitment need to be devoted toward a broad-based and coordi- nated planning effort for the expenditure of remaining funds within the district’s Capital Facilities accounts (CFD, GO Bond, COPS, state funds etc.) to ensure that maxim ben- efi ts are derived in an equitable manner for facilities throughout the district. The burden placed upon a very limited staff seems extraordinary and not in the long-term best inter- ests of the district or its communities. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 53 2.5 Facility Planning Professional Standard The district should have a properly staffed and funded facility planning department. Sources and Documentation 1. Discussion with Director of Facilities Services 2. Discussion with Director of Student Housing Services 3. Review of district staffi ng/organizational chart 4. Discussion with Offi ce of Public School Construction (OPSC) and California Department of Education (CDE) staff Findings 1. The planning function within the Facilities Services Department of the district appears to be understaffed at this time. While the Director of Student Housing Services’ knowledge base and skill set are recognized, it appears that his current range of responsibilities and involvement far exceed that which is found within other California public school districts of equivalent size; not to mention the highly aggressive, far-reaching, and long-term fa- cilities improvement program that is in progress within Vallejo. The current Director of Facilities Services, while very enthusiastic and generally knowledgeable, is relatively new to public education, and his daily efforts are more focused upon the short- and long- term maintenance/operational needs within the district. 2. While the district has employed the services of an outside construction management ser- vices fi rm to support the construction implementation program, it is very evident that the facilities planning role and functions fall within the responsibility of one district admin- istrative staff position. Given the breadth and complexity of the facilities improvement program in place within the district, this level of staffi ng may not be appropriate for the anticipated demands for effective and long-term planning. 3. Staffi ng augmentation may be possible through the allocated use of either Measure A funds (as permitted by ballot language and/or bond counsel review/authorization) and/or the use of Mello-Roos/CFD funds that are available within the district. 4. With (i) the passage of Measure A and (ii) the inadequate staffi ng and ability to retain individuals, the Student Housing Department has not been able to focus on future school facility needs. As a result, the district may be challenged in obtaining sites in appropriate areas with proper acreage for future school facilities. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. A self-analysis should be conducted within the district to determine the types and num- bers of additional staffi ng positions that may be required in order to effectively meet the facilities-related challenges and opportunities that exist within the district. 54 Facilities Management 2. Job descriptions, roles, and responsibilities should be carefully developed and articulated. A system of ongoing assessment and evaluation is needed to determine whether the Fa- cilities Services Department is properly staffed, properly functioning and funded to meet evolving project servicing requirements. 3. Utilization of outside/unbiased resources, such as the CDE/School Facilities Planning Division and/or the Solano County Offi ce of Education, is recommended to assist in this self-analysis and the development of an appropriate modifi ed staffi ng plan and/or opera- tional procedures for the department. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 55 2.6 Facility Planning Professional Standard The district should develop and implement an annual capital planning budget. Sources and Documentation 1. Discussion with Director of Student Housing 2. District documentation Findings 1. With the passage of Measure A, the district develops annual capital planning budgets that identify the school facilities improvements that require immediate attention in a given school year. This budget is given to the Governing Board and the Oversight and Account- ability Commission on a monthly basis. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district needs to prepare or have prepared a Long-Term Facilities Funding Plan. The funding plan should estimate the costs of modernizing existing school facilities and con- structing new school facilities, as well as the funding source to accomplish both needs. It is this type of planning, with the Long-Range School Facilities Master Plan and Long- Range Facilities Funding Plan, that will enable the district to determine whether the De- partment of Student Housing is performing appropriately and is adequately staffed. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: 56 Facilities Management 2.7 Facility Planning Legal Standard The district has standards for real property acquisition and disposal. [EC 39006, 17230-17233] Sources and Documentation 1. Discussion with Director of Student Housing 2. District documentation Findings 1. The district has policies regarding site selection and development. These policies are very comprehensive and should be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that changes in state and federal law are appropriately incorporated. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district should identify schools that should be closed in order to create more effi cient and effective school facilities. With the closure of schools, the district should develop an asset management plan that would complement the Long-Range Facilities Funding Plan. 2. The district should work with the city of Vallejo in identifying properties that could serve as school sites in the future. 3. The district should work with the city of Vallejo to assist in developing the asset manage- ment plan for excess school sites generated from facility closures. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 57 2.8 Facility Planning Legal Standard The district seeks and obtains waivers from the State Allocation Board for continued use of its non-conforming facilities. [EC 17284, 17285] Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with Offi ce of Public School Construction (OPSC) Project Manager 2. Interviews with district staff 3. Review of State Allocation Board agendas 4. Personal inspection of district sites/facilities Findings 1. The district has not pursued waivers from the State Allocation Board for authorized/con- tinued use of any of the district’s non-conforming facilities. 2. District staff were not aware that this type of waiver was available through the State Al- location Board. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district should fi nalize its efforts to obtain Division of the State Architect (DSA) ap- proval for any of its non-conforming facilities, seek to replace the non-conforming class- rooms with DSA-approved facilities, or obtain waivers from the State Allocation Board to continue to use the non-conforming facilities. Standard Implemented: Not Implemented November 1, 2004 Rating: 0 Implementation Scale: 58 Facilities Management 2.9 Facility Planning Legal Standard The district has established and utilizes a selection process for the selection of licensed architec- tural/engineering services. [GC 17302] Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with district staff 2. Review of district records Findings 1. The district has, in the past, successfully completed selection processes for the identifi ca- tion of an approved group of architectural/engineering/design fi rms for potential utiliza- tion on one or more district-identifi ed facilities projects. Records indicate that the process was completed in 1996-97 and once again in 2002. 2. There has been relatively focused participation by district staff within the architectural selection process. 3. The selection process resulted in the board’s approval of four fi rms to be included within an approved group of A/E fi rms from which to choose fi rms for individual projects. Three of the four fi rms have been successful within their respective district projects; the fourth fi rm has been removed from the list and work that was previously assigned to it has been redistributed to other approved fi rms. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Continue with the current process of obtaining architectural services. Standard Implemented: Fully - Sustained November 1, 2004 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 59 2.10 Facility Planning Legal Standard The district assesses its local bonding capacity. [EC 15100] Sources and Documentation 1. Discussion with Director of Student Housing 2. District documentation Findings 1. The district has retained the services of credible legal and fi nancial advisory fi rms to as- sist in assessing the local bonding capacity. This is evident with the passage of Measure A and the issuance and refunding of General Obligation Bonds. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district should continue to work with its legal and fi nancial advisors to access local bonding capacity. Standard Implemented: Fully - Sustained November 1, 2004 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: 60 Facilities Management 2.11 Facility Planning Professional Standard The district has developed a process to determine debt capacity. Sources and Documentation 1. Discussion with Director of Student Housing 2. District documentation Findings 1. With the assistance of a fi nancial advisor, the district has developed a process to deter- mine debt capacity. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district should continue to work with a fi nancial advisor whose expertise is municipal fi nance for school districts in the state. Standard Implemented: Fully - Sustained November 1, 2004 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 61 2.12 Facility Planning Professional Standard The district should be aware of and monitor the assessed valuation of taxable property within its boundaries. Sources and Documentation 1. Discussion with Director of Student Housing 2. District documentation Findings 1. Under the guidance of a fi nancial advisor, the district has been made aware of and has de- veloped a procedure for monitoring the assessed valuation of taxable property within its boundaries. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district should continue to work with a fi nancial advisor whose expertise is municipal fi nance for school districts in the state. Standard Implemented: Fully - Sustained November 1, 2004 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: 62 Facilities Management 2.13 Facility Planning Legal Standard The district should collect statutory school fees. [EC 17620, GC 65995, 66000] Sources and Documentation 1. Discussion with Director of Student Housing 2. District documentation Findings 1. The district has residential and commercial/industrial development school fee justifi cation studies. As a result, the district collects the maximum statutory school fees on residential or commercial/industrial development. 2. The district does not have a school facilities need analysis. As a result, the district does not collect alternative school facility fees on residential development per Government Code Section 65995.5. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district needs to engage in discussions with departments of the city of Vallejo to iden- tify the amount of residential and commercial/industrial development that is expected to occur within the boundaries of the district over the next fi ve to 20 years. 2. The district should retain a consultant to prepare a school facilities needs analysis. 3. The district needs to understand the politics of its community and determine whether it is possible to enter into mitigation agreements with land developers and merchant builders. The mitigation agreement would allow the district to obtain funds from the developer in an amount exceeding statutory school fees and alternative fees. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 63 2.14 Facility Planning Professional Standard The district should consider developing an asset management plan. Sources and Documentation 1. Discussion with Director of Student Housing Findings 1. The district has many schools that could be combined or eliminated. By combining schools or closing schools, the district could reduce maintenance and operation costs and generate surplus school sites that could be asset managed. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district and its consultant should work closely with staff of the city of Vallejo in de- veloping an asset management plan. By doing so, the district could create a more compre- hensive Long-Range Facilities Funding Plan. 2. The district should proceed cautiously in determining which schools should be closed. Standard Implemented: Not Implemented November 1, 2004 Rating: 0 Implementation Scale: 64 Facilities Management 2.15 Facility Planning Professional Standard The district has pursued state funding for joint-use projects through the fi ling of applications through the Offi ce of Public School Construction (OPSC) and the State Allocation Board. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with OPSC Project Manager 2. Review of OPSC Project Tracking for the district 3. Interviews with district staff 4. Review of district records Findings 1. The district has not pursued any applications for funding through the state’s School Fa- cilities Program for joint-use projects. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Funding for future joint-use projects continues to be available, and the concepts contained within the enabling legislation are based upon a sound and effi cient use of public funds. As such, the district would be well advised to monitor opportunities to leverage locally generated funds from other public agencies through the pursuit of joint-use projects and possibly joint-use funding through the School Facilities Program. Special note should be taken of the specifi c requirements for a local joint use partner, such as a city park and recreation district, as it seeks to generate potential joint-use projects in the future. Standard Implemented: Not Implemented November 1, 2004 Rating: 0 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 65 2.16 Facility Planning Professional Standard The district has established and utilizes an organized methodology of prioritizing and scheduling projects. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with district staff 2. Review of district records and reports Findings 1. The staff within the district works diligently to plan and schedule projects in a manner that corresponds to priorities established by the Governing Board. Clear-cut recommen- dations from staff appear to be presented to the district Governing Board for review, ap- proval, and direction for implementation, as well as to the Bond Oversight Committee for its ongoing information. 2. The district has maintained an effective working relationship with its professional con- struction manager. This relationship has been benefi cial to the district. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district has done a relatively effective job in scheduling projects, given the very lim- ited staffi ng that currently exists within the district and the strong competing demands that exist from various constituencies within the district. The district should continue to utilize the services of a professional construction manager to assist with scheduling of projects. However, the staffi ng level within the Student Housing Department should be enhanced to ensure the most effi cient use of the remaining limited funds. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: 66 Facilities Management 2.17 Facility Planning Professional Standard The district complies with California Department of Education (CDE) recommendations relative to school site sizing. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with district staff 2. Review of district facilities records 3. Physical inspection of district sites/facilities Findings 1. The district currently maintains a wide variety of schools on sites that vary greatly in size and enrollment capacities. The district’s school sites are generally constructed on rela- tively small and somewhat constrained sites. 2. The district has a range of site sizes and confi gurations upon which to conduct the various educational programs and instructional services offered to the district’s approximately 18,000 students. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district is extremely limited in its ability to modify existing site sizes given the built- out residential condition that generally exists in and around most of the district’s sites. In essence, the school site sizes are not likely to change. 2. If the district considers any future new school site (of which there has been some ongo- ing discussion), the district should carefully utilize the resources within the CDE’s School Facilities Planning Division to analyze and size future school sites in accordance with the guidelines included within the Guide to School Site Analysis and Development, 2000 edi- tion. Standard Implemented: Not Implemented November 1, 2004 Rating: 0 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 67 2.18 Facility Planning Professional Standard The district should distribute facility funding in an equitable manner to all communities served and all school levels. Sources and Documentation 1. Discussion with Director of Student Housing 2. District documentation Findings 1. The district recognizes that the funding of school facilities needs to be distributed throughout its boundaries at all school levels. 2. The district prepares monthly reports on progress in implementing school improvements funded through Measure A and presents such reports to the Governing Board. 3. The district has a Bond Oversight Committee to oversee the expenditure of bond pro- ceeds generated from Measure A. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Continue to analyze the equitability of funding among all schools. 2. Continue the preparation of monthly reports regarding progress made on school facilities funded by Measure A. 3. Continue to work with the Bond Oversight Committee regarding the expenditure of bond proceeds generated from Measure A. Standard Implemented: Fully - Sustained November 1, 2004 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: 68 Facilities Management 2.19 Facility Planning Professional Standard A district that has passed a general obligation bond has created a Citizens Oversight Committee to ensure the appropriateness of expenditures related to the passage of the district’s local school bond measure. Sources and Documentation 1. Discussions with Director of Student Housing 2. District documentation Findings 1. Even though Measure A was not approved under the guidelines of Proposition 39, the dis- trict has created a Bond Oversight Committee. This committee was given the charge and operates like a Citizens’ Oversight Committee required under Proposition 39. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Continue to have the Bond Oversight Committee meet on a regular basis as long as funds from Measure A have not been completely spent. Standard Implemented: Fully - Sustained November 1, 2004 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 69 3.1 Facilities Improvement and Modernization Professional Standard The district has a restricted deferred maintenance fund and those funds are expended for maintenance purposes only. The deferred maintenance fund is a stand-alone fund refl ecting the revenues and expenses for the major maintenance projects accomplished during the year. Sources and Documentation 1. Board policy 2. Interview with Director of Facilities Services 3. District’s general ledger for deferred maintenance fund 4. Copies of Form 14 Deferred Maintenance Fund Budget and Unaudited Actuals document 5. Copies of purchase orders and contracts 6. Copy of state-approved fi ve-year Deferred Maintenance Plan Findings 1. No board policy exists stating the district’s goals for the use of the deferred maintenance funds or the facilities that will carry the highest priority for the deferred maintenance pro- gram. 2. The district updates the fi ve-year Deferred Maintenance Plan regularly and submits it to the Offi ce of Public School Construction (OPSC) for approval. However, the form used for submission is the 1992 version and does not refl ect the changes that OPSC requires of all districts. 3. The fi ve-year plan includes expenditures for district offi ce maintenance, which is not al- lowed under the state deferred maintenance program. 4. The district took advantage of the one-time waiver of the district’s match to participate in the program. Normally, the district makes the annual transfer into the deferred mainte- nance fund from the general fund. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Establish board policy stating the district’s goals for the use of deferred maintenance funds and prioritize the types of projects. 2. Continue to update the fi ve-year Deferred Maintenance Plan annually to remove main- tenance completed during the year and include projects that have become eligible for deferred maintenance funding. While state funding will never reach the level necessary to cover the total district needs, the district should have a plan in place for all available funding. Also, the district should use the latest version of the state’s fi ve-year Deferred Maintenance Plan as posted on the OPSC Web site. 3. While the fi ve-year plan includes maintenance projects for the district offi ce, the projects should only be included in case the district offi ce is converted back to an active school. 4. Continue to make the maximum match transfer into the deferred maintenance fund. 70 Facilities Management Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 71 3.2 Facilities Improvement and Modernization Professional Standard The district has pursued state funding for deferred maintenance/critical hardship needs by fi ling an application/s through the Offi ce of Public School Construction (OPSC) and the State Alloca- tion Board. [State Allocation Board Regulation §1866] Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with OPSC staff 2. Interviews with district staff 3. District facilities records 4. State Allocation Board agendas Findings 1. The district has not pursued deferred maintenance/critical hardship funding through the State Allocation Board. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district should pursue deferred maintenance/critical hardship funding opportunities through the State Allocation Board if and when funding opportunities exist. It is recog- nized that the state’s Deferred Maintenance Program is limited at the current time and the district is in an extremely poor fi nancial condition for meeting matching share require- ments. Standard Implemented: Not Implemented November 1, 2004 Rating: 0 Implementation Scale: 72 Facilities Management 3.3 Facilities Improvement and Modernization Professional Standard The district applies to the State Allocation Board for facilities funding for all applicable projects and consistently reviews and monitors its eligibility for state funding so as to capitalize upon maximal funding opportunities. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with Offi ce of Public School Construction (OPSC) Project Manager and other staff members 2. OPSC project tracking for the district 3. Interviews with district staff 4. District facilities records 5. State Allocation Board agendas Findings 1. The district has made a concerted effort within recent years to access the School Facility Program (SFP) for potential funding of modernization, growth and deferred maintenance needs. This was also true through the previous state program, the lease-purchase program. The district has established its “baseline” eligibility through the SFP. 2. Due to the extremely large application material demands for a district participating in the state SFP, the district is fi nding it diffi cult to constantly submit forms and records to the OPSC. This is a tremendous local responsibility that quickly accumulates within a dis- trict. The State Allocation Board has the legislative authority to require payback of appor- tionments in the event that record-keeping and paperwork submission requirements are not met. A more consistent and proactive approach may need to be established, although the current Director of Student Housing Services appears to be knowledgeable about the SFP. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district should continue to monitor potential funding opportunities that may be avail- able through the current state program, the SFP. The district may continue to have eligi- bility for new construction at certain grade levels (especially if the Mare Island develop- ment project that is currently being proposed by Lennar moves forward). The district should continue to monitor opportunities for additional modernization funding, given CBEDS fl uctuations, and pursue potential joint-use funding. 2. The district should continue its effort to participate in the SFP and recognize the critical importance of advancing individual projects through the Division of the State Architect (DSA) approval phase in order to best position a specifi c project for potential state fund- ing. 3. Future Facilities Department staff should receive training on state program regulations and how they specifi cally apply to applications for funding for the district. Responsibility for this type of district participation cannot rest solely upon the shoulders of the Director of Student Housing Services. Facilities Management 73 4. Specifi c district staff should be responsible for monitoring the state program and serving as a liaison with appropriate state program representatives at the time that additional Fa- cilities Department staffi ng is provided. 5. Regularly scheduled coordination meetings should be conducted with district staff, archi- tects, construction managers, etc., for the purpose of tracking the completion of activities necessary to enhance state program funding potential. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: 74 Facilities Management 3.4 Facilities Improvement and Modernization Legal Standard The district maintains a plan for the maintenance and modernization of its facilities. [EC 17366] Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with district staff 2. Review of district records 3. Review of meeting minutes from the district’s Bond Oversight Committee Findings 1. A plan exists to guide the district’s facilities program. Consistent reports are prepared and presented to the district’s board and to the district’s Bond Oversight Committee. 2. The district has fi led its fi ve-year Deferred Maintenance Plan with the State Allocation Board, although, due to the fi nancial crisis in the district, very limited progress has been made over the past couple of years in completing deferred maintenance items. 3. The district is providing improvements to its facilities through funding approved by local voters and successful access to state funding. 4. There are signifi cant ongoing facility-related improvements that still need to be ad- dressed. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district must continue its implementation of its facilities needs study, its facilities master plan, and its fi ve-year deferred maintenance plan. 2. The district must continue to refi ne its Facilities Master Plan and Facilities Needs Study on a more regular and consistent basis as individual projects are completed and additional facility needs are identifi ed. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 75 3.5 Facilities Improvement and Modernization Professional Standard The district establishes and implements interim housing plans for use during the construction phase of modernization projects and/or additions to existing facilities. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with district staff 2. Review of district records Findings 1. Multiple modernization and campus improvement projects have been completed and oth- ers remain in progress within the district. In virtually all cases, the district has provided for and utilized interim housing as a strategy to minimize impacts to the specifi c school’s instructional program while construction/reconstruction was being completed. The dis- trict’s staff remains receptive to using interim housing for any future modernization to minimize disruptions to an individual school’s instructional program. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. In order to minimize distractions to the instructional program at any given site being modernized or receiving substantial facility additions, the district should consider the fol- lowing factors related to the continued provision and use of an interim housing plan: • Include the site level administrators in discussions focusing on construction phas- ing plans and the need for the provision and placement of interim housing. • Make a commitment to provide uniform communication between all involved par- ties relative to project scheduling elements at each respective site. • Ensure strict adherence to project schedules to maximize the effectiveness of inter- im housing plans. This requires strong leadership in the construction administration phase of the project. The project architect, the general contractor’s representative, the district construction representative, and other responsible parties will need to operate through a cohesive approach toward project and construction management. Standard Implemented: Fully - Substantially November 1, 2004 Rating: 9 Implementation Scale: 76 Facilities Management 3.6 Facilities Improvement and Modernization Professional Standard The district has established and maintains a system for tracking the progress of individual projects. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with district staff 2. District facilities records Findings 1. The district currently has a wide array of projects in various phases of planning and con- struction. 2. The district is currently utilizing the services of a construction management fi rm. An ef- fective working relationship exists between the construction management fi rm and dis- trict staff. 3. The district appears to be understaffed to handle anticipated facilities planning and ad- ministration needs. 4. Leadership within the Student Housing Department and Facilities Services is knowledge- able and interested in project tracking and appears to have the requisite skills for the over- all management of projects. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district should consider the signifi cant project management and project tracking needs that will be associated with its list of future facilities projects and become better prepared to effectively track the progress and successful closeout of individual projects. 2. All Student Housing Department staff should participate in professional training related to project management/project closeout. Training should be uniform for all staff. 3. Regularly scheduled “project status” meetings between all involved parties should be conducted to promote project articulation and to develop a more uniform understanding of the status of individual projects. If and when future project/construction managers are employed, they should attend these meetings and provide concise and up-to-date written reports that refl ect the status and needs of projects under their responsibility. 4. The understaffi ng in the district’s Facilities Services and Student Housing Services De- partments needs to be seriously evaluated and remedied. 5. A careful assessment of staffi ng needs to take into consideration the district’s past and an- ticipated future use of an outside construction management fi rm. Facilities Management 77 Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: 78 Facilities Management 3.7 Facilities Improvement and Modernization Professional Standard Furniture and equipment items are routinely included within the scope of modernization projects. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with Offi ce of Public School Construction (OPSC) Project Manager 2. Interviews with district-level and site-level staff 3. District records Findings 1. An important element in any modernization project is the inclusion of furniture and equipment. While it is benefi cial to update the building structures, it is important to also consider the upgrade of furniture and equipment within any given school modernization project. The district has obtained the passage of its local bond for facilities (Measure A) and has sought and obtained state funding to supplement the funds generated through the success- ful local bond measure. However, it appears that the district has neither included nor allo- cated funds within individual projects to replace part or all of the furniture and equipment within a modernized school. The non-inclusion of furniture and equipment replacement within a “fi nished” modernization project diminishes the overall quality of the project and lessens the positive impact upon the school’s instructional program and delivery of edu- cational services to its students. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district should make a concerted effort to attempt to replace furniture and equipment in its modernized schools and to include furniture and equipment budgets/allocations as a standard element of future modernization project budgets. Funding defi ciencies may very well limit the amount and types of furniture and equipment that can be systematically replaced, but this type of improvement is an important element toward refurbishing and upgrading the learning environment at any school. 2. The district should establish a furniture and equipment standard for schools within each of the various grade level structures: elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools. This standard should identify the relative replacement benchmarks for general categories of furniture and equipment, e.g., student desks should typically be replaced after a certain number of years of use. 3. An assessment should be made at all schools and within all classrooms of the existing furniture and equipment (age, condition, etc.). 4. A comparison should be made between the condition of existing furniture and equipment and the established district standards for furniture and equipment replacement. Facilities Management 79 5. As a result of the completion of steps 1 through 4, a furniture and equipment replacement plan should be priced and then analyzed for full or partial systematic implementation. Standard Implemented: Not Implemented November 1, 2004 Rating: 0 Implementation Scale: 80 Facilities Management 3.8 Facilities Improvement and Modernization Professional Standard Refurbishing, modernization, and new construction projects should take into account technology infrastructure needs. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with district-level and site-level staff 2. Review of district records and plans 3. Physical inspection of district campuses and selected classrooms 4. Review of plans and specifi cations Findings 1. The district has consistently addressed technology infrastructure needs within its facilities projects. There has been excellent and very equitable use of e-rate funding at virtually all district sites to provide MDFs, IDFs, adequate power, and data ports in almost all instruc- tional spaces. The typical standard has been to provide enough power within classrooms for 32 computers and to provide at least four data ports/outlets to accommodate Internet and networking needs throughout the schools. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district has demonstrated a commitment toward the provision of technology infra- structure in modernization plans for each of its schools. However, the provision of the infrastructure is only a beginning in the overall goal of providing up-to-date and high- quality technological opportunities for teachers and students. A commensurate commit- ment must continue to be made toward the appropriate provision of technology hardware and wireless connections in conditions that are appropriate for this instructional delivery methodology/strategy. Standard Implemented: Fully - Substantially November 1, 2004 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 81 3.9 Facilities Improvement and Modernization Legal Standard The district obtains approval of plans and specifi cations from the Division of the State Architect (DSA) and the Offi ce of Public School Construction (OPSC) (when required) prior to the award of a contract to the lowest, responsible bidder. [EC 17263, 17267] Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with district staff 2. Review of district project documents Findings 1. The district obtains DSA and OPSC approvals prior to the award of a contract to the low- est responsible bidder. 2. In very limited and highly selected instances, it appears the district proceeded with the award of a construction contract prior to agency approvals. This has only occurred when scheduling needs absolutely necessitated such action. 3. The district’s outside construction management fi rm is routinely involved in review of plans and preparation for bidding Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Continue to require advance approval by the DSA and the OPSC of all construction plans to maintain maximum funding eligibility. 2. Limit the number of projects that proceed without prior authorization to emergency situa- tions only. 3. Continue to involve the outside construction management fi rm in reviewing the plans. Standard Implemented: Fully - Substantially November 1, 2004 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: 82 Facilities Management 3.10 Facilities Improvement and Modernization Legal Standard All relocatables in use throughout the district meet statutory requirements. [EC 17292] Sources and Documentation 1. Inspection of district sites 2. Interviews with district staff 3. Review of district records 4. Review of Division of the State Architect (DSA) records Findings 1. The district has between 15 and 20 relocatable facilities throughout the district that do not currently meet statutory requirements. At one point, the plan within the district was to replace these non-approved facilities with new (perhaps two-story) modular classrooms. However, that plan has now been put on hold. 2. An architectural/engineering fi rm has been retained to assist with the preparation of the necessary plans and documents in order to pursue and obtain DSA approval of these non- approved facilities. 3. Progress is being made toward the necessary approvals, but, as of the writing of this re- port, all relocatables in use throughout the district do not yet meet statutory requirements. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district must fi nalize its efforts to obtain DSA approval on those identifi ed relocat- ables that are in use throughout the district that do not meet all of the statutory require- ments. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 83 3.11 Facilities Improvement and Modernization Professional Standard The annual deferred maintenance contribution is made correctly. The district annually transfers the maximum amount that the district would be eligible for in matching funds from the state. Sources and Documentation 1. District’s general ledger for deferred maintenance fund 2. Copies of Form 14 Deferred Maintenance Fund Budget and Unaudited Actuals document 3. State correspondence for maximum funding 4. Copies of historical transfer certifi cation document Findings 1. While the district has historically transferred suffi cient funding to the deferred mainte- nance fund to assure that the district will receive maximum state funding, for the year re- viewed, the district took advantage of the one-time waiver in the state budget. The waiver allowed the district to skip the transfer for one year and still receive state funding. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. At a minimum, the district should continue transferring the maximum amount possible to match the state deferred maintenance apportionment. The amount currently budgeted for transfer from Resource 8150 should be transferred as soon as the State Allocation Board approves the state apportionment. Standard Implemented: Fully - Sustained November 1, 2004 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: 84 Facilities Management 3.12 Facilities Improvement and Modernization Professional Standard The district actively manages the deferred maintenance projects. The district reviews the fi ve- year deferred maintenance plan annually to remove any completed projects and include any newly eligible projects. The district also verifi es that the expenses performed during the year were included in the state-approved fi ve-year deferred maintenance plan. Sources and Documentation 1. Board policy 2. Interview with Director of Facilities Services 3. District’s general ledger for deferred maintenance fund 4. Copies of Form 14 Deferred Maintenance Fund Budget and Unaudited Actuals document 5. Copies of purchase orders and contracts 6. Copy of state-approved fi ve-year deferred maintenance plan Findings 1. No board policy exists stating the district’s goals for the use of deferred maintenance funds or the facilities that will carry the highest priority for the deferred maintenance program. 2. The district updates the fi ve-year Deferred Maintenance Plan regularly and submits it to the Offi ce of Public School Construction (OPSC) for approval. However, the form used for submission is the 1992 version and does not refl ect the changes that OPSC requires of all districts. 3. The fi ve-year plan includes expenditures for district offi ce maintenance, which is not al- lowed under the state deferred maintenance program. 4. The district took advantage of the one-time waiver of the district’s match to participate in the program. Normally, the district makes the annual transfer into the deferred mainte- nance fund from the general fund. 5. The district increased the purchasing power of the deferred maintenance funds by com- bining Measure A and deferred maintenance funds to work on one large project instead of two smaller, and possibly more costly, projects. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Establish board policy stating the district’s goals for the use of deferred maintenance funds and prioritize the types of projects. 2. Continue to update the fi ve-year Deferred Maintenance Plan annually to remove main- tenance completed during the year and include projects that have become eligible for deferred maintenance funding. While state funding will never reach the level necessary to cover the total district needs, the district should have a plan in place for all available funding. Also, the district should use the latest version of the state’s fi ve-year deferred maintenance plan as posted on the OPSC Web site. Facilities Management 85 3. While the fi ve-year plan includes maintenance projects for the district offi ce, the projects should only be included in case the district offi ce is converted back to an active school. 4. Continue to make the maximum match transfer into the deferred maintenance fund. 5. Continue the purchasing power of the deferred maintenance funding by using it in con- junction with Measure A funding. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: 86 Facilities Management 3.13 Facilities Improvement and Modernization Professional Standard Staff within the district is knowledgeable of procedures within the Offi ce of Public School Construction (OPSC) and the Division of the State Architect (DSA). Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with OPSC Project Manager 2. Interview with DSA staff 3. Interviews with district staff Findings 1. A limited number of upper-level management within the district are knowledgeable of procedures and regulations within the OPSC and the state SFP. This is refl ective of the signifi cant turnover in personnel that has occurred throughout the district. Intentions re- main high for selected staff members to remain current on OPSC and DSA procedures, but this appears to not always be possible given the areas of responsibility and span of control that exist within key management functions in the Facilities Services and Student Housing Services departments. The district has relied upon and made good use of outside consulting services to assist in these areas. 2. The Student Housing Services function seems understaffed to keep pace with the evolv- ing regulations and requirements associated with the SFP through the State Allocation Board and the OPSC, and more training would benefi t selected staff within the Facilities Services Department. 3. In reviewing the OPSC Web site and in discussions with OPSC staff, it appears that there have been excessive, and in some cases unnecessary actions related to the fi ling and/or rescinding of applications for state funding in the past. Some of this indecisiveness could be attributed to what appears to be the ever-changing composition of the district’s admin- istrative decision-making team, as well as changing and/or evolving needs throughout the district. This type of indecisiveness, however, is costly given the paperwork and process- ing requirements that are associated with each application that is fi led through the OPSC. 4. Upper-level management within the district is fairly knowledgeable of DSA procedures. 5. The current construction-related staff within the Student Housing Department is very fa- miliar with DSA procedures. 6. Representatives from the district’s construction management fi rm and the retained Inspec- tors of Record are knowledgeable and well versed in DSA procedures and regulations. Facilities Management 87 Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Any additional staffi ng to the district’s Student Housing Department should receive train- ing on proven methodologies to work effectively with both the OPSC and DSA staff and to fully understand OPSC and DSA procedures, especially with the implementation and ongoing refi nement of SFP regulations. 2. Training could occur through selected in-district personnel, but it is suggested that this training be augmented through the use of outside professionals who have experience in working with OPSC and DSA staff and who are well-versed in OPSC and DSA proce- dures. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: 88 Facilities Management 4.1 Construction of Projects Professional Standard The district maintains an appropriate structure for the effective management of its construction projects. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with district staff 2. Review of district records 3. Interviews with contractors from respective construction projects Findings 1. It is our observation that the district is managing its current construction projects with varying degrees of success. It appears that staff assigned to construction oversight/inter- face is spread too thin to be truly effective within the larger context of the district’s ambi- tious “Measure A—A New Beginning” program. The district’s aggressive construction program appears to be winding down toward conclusion within the next couple of years. Concerns exist at some of the project sites regarding the overall quality of the fi nished project, follow-through on punch lists, and closeout and/or warranty items. 2. There is a signifi cant concern that the current inadequate staffi ng within the Facilities Department and Student Housing Services Department could exacerbate any construction implementation and/or close-out issues as the Measure A and state funded projects move into fi nal stages within the next couple of years. 3. The district has utilized an outside construction management fi rm, and this working rela- tionship appears to be effective. However, the impression has been given that the contin- ued use of outside construction management services may be nearing its end within the next year or so. If this is the case, it will be even more critical for the district’s staff to be well trained and well skilled in the challenging area of project closeout. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district should carefully plan for upcoming project and construction management needs in consideration of the large number of Measure A and state-funded projects that remain to be completed. 2. The district should establish procedures to evaluate the ongoing effectiveness of its in- district vs. outside construction management relationship. The results of this evaluation should guide the amount and degree of future use of outside construction management services. 3. Any future Student Housing Department staff that is retained for involvement in the con- struction phase of projects should participate in professional training related to project and construction management. Facilities Management 89 4. Provisions for team building/training should be made for the various in-district and out- side professionals involved in the district’s facilities-related projects to ensure that ef- fective project coordination and articulation occurs. This will be especially important to enhance the most effi cient use of locally generated funding and maximize the leveraging of local funds since the district has already received a signifi cant amount of state funding and may continue to pursue future state funding opportunities. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: 90 Facilities Management 4.2 Construction of Projects Professional Standard Change orders are processed and receive prior approval from required parties before being implemented within respective construction projects. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with Inspectors of Record (IOR) 2. Interviews with district staff 3. Interviews with respective contractors 4. Review of district records Findings 1. The district has generally obtained all required approvals for change orders prior to their implementation. Current written procedures exist to guide the change order process with- in district projects. The importance of this practice cannot be overstated due to the fi nan- cial implications that can result through a haphazard adherence to this practice. 2. The district has had relatively good experiences with respect to its IOR. The IOR is an important participant in the change order review/approval process. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. To ensure continued compliance with the practice of obtaining all change order approvals prior to implementation, the district should clearly articulate to all project participants the district standard of obtaining all necessary approvals for change orders prior to imple- mentation of the change order. 2. Continually review procedures and standards, and modify as necessary, for the selection and employment of IOR. Include in their initial district training the reinforcement of the district standard and procedures for all change order approvals prior to implementation. This is challenging, given the large number of public school construction projects that are in progress throughout the state of California and the depletion this has created upon the pool of highly qualifi ed IOR. Standard Implemented: Fully - Substantially November 1, 2004 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 91 4.3 Construction of Projects Professional Standard The district maintains appropriate project records and drawings. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with Inspectors of Record (IOR) 2. Interviews with district staff 3. Review of district records 4. Inspection of the district’s records storage facility Findings 1. The district, not unlike many California public school districts, is somewhat disorganized and inconsistent in the maintenance of project records and drawings. Improvement could be made in the district’s maintenance in both of these areas. 2. An improved system of storage and maintenance of project records and drawings is nec- essary to support future needs at district sites for repair of and/or modifi cations to existing facilities. 3. The district’s Director of Facilities Services has expressed a strong desire to establish a location and a process for plan/records storage. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district should improve its storage and maintenance of records and drawings through an organized effort to establish internal systems for the creation and maintenance of proj- ect records. 2. The district should create an area and system adequate to maintain project drawings and specifi cations. It is believed that this area should be in close proximity to the offi ce of the Director of Facilities to ensure monitoring of plan checkout/as-built plan availability and utilization. 3. A system to record plans checkout and to ensure responsibility/accountability for returns should be established and enforced. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: 92 Facilities Management 4.4 Construction of Projects Professional Standard Each Inspector of Record (IOR) assignment is properly approved. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with Division of the State Architect (DSA) staff 2. Interviews with district staff 3. Review of district records Findings 1. The district employs its IOR and each assignment is properly approved. It should be not- ed, however, that the district has expressed some level of concern regarding the rapidly escalating costs associated with the provision of continuous inspection. This concern is being expressed by other districts as well. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district should continue to analyze its selection methods for the employment of IOR and to remain current on the market prices that are associated with the utilization of quali- fi ed IORs. Standard Implemented: Fully - Substantially November 1, 2004 Rating: 9 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 93 5.1 Compliance with Public Contracting Laws and Procedures Legal Standard The district complies with formal bidding procedures. [GC 54202, 54204, PCC 20111] Sources and Documentation 1. Board policy 2. Copy of bid processing documents 3. Sample bid documents including ads, bid packets, awards, and correspondence Findings 1. Current board policies for the bidding process were readily available: BP 3310, 3311, and 3312, adopted April 26, 1995. They are general in nature and adequate, but should be re- viewed and updated periodically. 2. The district had detailed administrative regulations in place to support the board policies relating to purchasing goods and services and the bid process. 3. The district has a well-documented bid process in place as verifi ed by an interview with the Director of Purchasing. Sample bid documents for the construction of facilities proj- ects provide a clear understanding of what is required of bidders, including minimum documentation required for a bid to be considered, the deductive alternatives to the bid, the composition of the company bidding on the project, and lengthy details of the work being considered. 4. Bid specifi cations are developed in cooperation with the Student Housing Department. The boilerplate for bids is developed and maintained by the Purchasing Department. This is an appropriate process. 5. The process is well documented and followed, according to the fi les. The Purchasing De- partment maintains the fi les for the process, and works closely with the Student Housing Department in the progress of each bid. 6. Protest procedures for bidders that bring forth formal objections to bid awards are in place and are followed. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Adopt a review schedule for board policies for the bid process, especially the sections de- tailing the Governing Board’s expectations of the staff. 2. Include the board policy as a portion of the bid document. 3. Continue to maintain detailed administrative regulations in support of the board policies. 94 Facilities Management Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 95 5.2 Compliance with Public Contracting Laws and Procedures Legal Standard The district has a procedure for requests for quotes/proposals. [GC 54202, 54204, PCC 20111] Sources and Documentation 1. Board policy 2. District procedures 3. Sample requests for proposals Findings 1. The current board policies, BP 3310, 3311, and 3312, are applicable to both the bidding process and all other purchasing services, including processing requests for quotations and requests for proposals. 2. The district has an appropriate quote process in place as verifi ed by an interview with the Director of Purchasing and a review of relevant documents. This process includes defi n- ing when the district will request quotes or bids for projects. The Purchasing Department maintains the fi les for the process and works closely with schools and departments in the progress of each quote. 3. There were no formal dollar limits defi ning when the district would use phone quotes or informal bidding. The judgments made were appropriate, but the procedure should be written and included in instructions provided to schools and vendors, as well as to pur- chasing staff. 4. The purchasing agent, assigned by school, is the primary party responsible for handling the informal quotes and bids to provide a clean internal control break. The process is well documented and followed per the fi les. 5. The district recently published a purchasing handbook for schools, Purchasing, Repro- duction, and Risk Management Services Procedures Manual, and it is excellent. The de- tailed instructions allow school site personnel to make purchases quickly and effi ciently. 6. The district does not allow the use of district credit cards. This puts pressure on the num- ber of short-notice purchases made through Purchasing, but is a prudent policy. 7. The Purchasing Director retains fi nal review and approval of all purchases. Since the ar- rival of the incumbent, procedures have been revised and streamlined and the district is able to meet all requirements with a very small staff. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Adopt a review schedule for board policies related to purchasing processes. 2. Continue to maintain the procedures manual recently provided to school sites and depart- ments. 96 Facilities Management 3. Quotes and informal bidding procedures, based upon the dollar value of the purchase, should be written and included in instructions provided to schools and vendors, as well as to purchasing staff. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 97 5.3 Compliance with Public Contracting Laws and Procedures Professional Standard The district maintains fi les of confl ict of interest statements and complies with legal require- ments. Confl ict of interest statements are collected annually by the superintendent and kept on fi le. Sources and Documentation 1. Board policy 2. Copies of sample confl ict of interest statements on fi le Findings 1. Board Policy 2300 and Board Bylaw 9270 require that all board members and designated district employees fi le confl ict of interest statements. These employees must fi le annual statements: • Superintendent • Deputy Superintendent • Associate Superintendent of Business Services • Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources • Director of Certifi cated Human Resources • Director of Curriculum and Staff Development • Director of Elementary Support • Director of Facilities • Director of Fiscal Services • Director of Purchasing/Risk Management • Director of Secondary Support • Director of Special Projects • Director of Student Housing • Director of Student Nutrition • Director of Technological Support 2. The confl ict of interest statements were included in the fi le for all positions noted in the board policy. Some of the eliminated positions or positions that became vacant recently did not have the signed departure papers in the fi le. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Update certifi cation to the county as to which positions requiring confl ict of interest state- ments have been designated by the board. 98 Facilities Management 2. Pursue departing employees to obtain signed departure documents. 3. Obtain signed confl ict of interest statements for all appropriate new employees. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 99 5.4 Compliance with Public Contracting Laws and Procedures Professional Standard The district ensures that biddable plans and specifi cations are developed through its licensed architects/engineers for respective construction projects. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with district staff 2. Review of district records 3. Interviews with construction managers/project contractors 4. Interviews with Inspectors of Record (IOR) Findings 1. The district has expressed general satisfaction with the quality of plans and specifi cations prepared and utilized during respective project bid periods. One of the district’s four pre- viously approved architectural/engineering fi rms did not meet the district’s standards and has subsequently been released from all contractual requirements. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district should consistently continue to analyze the “bid ability and constructability” of plans and specifi cations for future projects 2. Prior to establishing a bid schedule for a construction project, the district should conduct coordination meetings between the project architect, the architect’s engineering consul- tants, and district representatives to address “biddability and constructability” of plans and specifi cations. 3. These meetings should discuss plans and specifi cations relative to program needs and project budget. 4. The district should consider the completion of a constructability review of each project’s plans and specifi cations. 5. Required revisions as recommended through the project constructability review should be made to the plans and specifi cations prior to bid authorization. Standard Implemented: Fully - Substantially November 1, 2004 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: 100 Facilities Management 5.5 Compliance with Public Contracting Laws and Procedures Professional Standard The district ensures that requests for progress payments are carefully evaluated. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with district staff 2. Interviews with project managers and contractors 3. Review of district records Findings 1. The district uses a system in which progress payment requests within respective projects are carefully evaluated through the Director of Student Housing Services and his limited staff. While this approach is working somewhat effectively at this time, it seems like a heavy burden has been placed upon a limited number of individuals to primarily facilitate the processing of pay requests. 2. The staff noted that general satisfaction in the selection and utilization of architectural/en- gineering fi rms and inspection services has enhanced the team approach required for ef- fectiveness in fairly and successfully evaluating progress payment requests. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Continue to take steps to address the effective and systematic review of progress pay- ments. This is even more important given the responsibility associated with the effi cient implementation and utilization of Measure A and state funds. 2. Maintain efforts to ensure the selection and employment of qualifi ed architectural/engi- neering fi rms and qualifi ed IOR as these entities play important roles in the processing of progress payments. 3. Provide additional training within the Student Housing Services Department for addi- tional staff to assist with the pay request process so that the burden/responsibility for this important activity is more distributed and results in a more rapid response to progress payment evaluation and turnaround. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 101 5.6 Compliance with Public Contracting Laws and Procedures Legal Standard The district maintains contract award/appeal processes. [GC 54202, 54204, PCC 20111] Sources and Documentation 1. Board policy 2. Interview with Director of Purchasing Findings 1. A current board policy for the appeal process, BP 3311, was available, but it simply set out a requirement to follow the law. More detail would be helpful. 2. The district has an appropriate bid appeal process in place as verifi ed by an interview with the Director of Purchasing and a review of a specifi c appeal. While the district has had some appeals and litigation regarding recent awards of contracts, it has been success- ful in defending all challenges. Much of this success is attributed to bid documents that are solid. 3. Since the district initiated the current bid procedure, there has been a reduction in the number of appeals. Those that were received were handled in accordance with current law, policies, and procedures. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district Governing Board should adopt a board policy that delineates the appeal pro- cess in greater detail. 2. The district should continue the current bid and appeal process. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: 102 Facilities Management 5.7 Compliance with Public Contracting Laws and Procedures Legal Standard The district maintains internal control, security, and confi dentiality over the bid submission and award processes. [GC 54202, 54204, PCC 20111] Sources and Documentation 1. Board policy and administrative regulations 2. Interview with Director of Purchasing Findings 1. A current board policy for the proper internal control of the bidding process, BP 3311, was available. 2. AR 3311 provided a very good description of the process to be followed. 3. The bid opening and security processes are appropriate as evidenced by an examination of bid documents and award procedures. 4. The district has a good internal control procedure over the bidding process. While the Student Housing Department initiates the request for the proposal, the Purchasing Depart- ment is a key partner in the process. The Purchasing Department has the primary respon- sibility for coordinating and disseminating documents, advertising the process, and open- ing the bids. The Purchasing Department is also responsible for issuing the contract once the bid has been awarded. This provides a very good internal control procedure. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district's Governing Board should adopt a review schedule for board policies that de- lineates the proper internal control process. 2. The district should continue the current bid process, which includes a sound internal con- trol standard. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 103 6.1 Special Education Facilities Professional Standard The district complies with California Department of Education (CDE) requirements relative to the provision of Special Education facilities. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with CDE staff 2. Interviews with district staff 3. Inspection of district sites/facilities Findings 1. The district operates as a single-district SELPA and generally understands the facility re- quirements related to the provision of special education facilities, and provides facilities accordingly, within given physical constraints. 2. The district generally provides appropriate physical spaces for its less severely handi- capped students (direct service programs) through district-administered programs. 3. Facilities and services for more severely handicapped students are provided through spe- cial education programs operated within district facilities. In some instances, special edu- cation services (speech therapy, psychological services, etc.) are provided in inadequate learning environments. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district should develop a plan to ensure that adequate spaces are provided for all spe- cial education programs and services. 2. Complete a facilities inventory/assessment to determine the actual space allocations for current special education programs (within both relocatable and permanent facilities). 3. Compare the analysis of existing space allocations with program needs and expectations to ensure that the delivery of quality special education programs is not inhibited due to space and/or location limitations. 4. Measure the fi ndings of the aforementioned analysis with recommendations provided through the CDE, the Offi ce of Public School Construction (OPSC), and the State Alloca- tion Board relative to suggested areas for respective programs. 5. Develop a plan to correct any space and/or location defi ciencies that exist within respec- tive district school sites relative to the delivery of instructional services and programs for special education students. 6. The fi scal impact associated with the implementation of this plan needs to be developed and considered within the broader context of facilities-related needs within the district, as well as in relation to available funding sources. 104 Facilities Management Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 105 6.2 Special Education Facilities Professional Standard The district provides facilities for its special education programs that ensure equity with other educational programs within the district and provides appropriate learning environments in relation to educational program needs. Sources and Documentation 1. Inspection of district sites/facilities 2. Interviews with district staff Findings 1. The district provides a far-reaching range of special education services to its students within facilities that are similar, in many ways, to those found in many California public school districts. There is some level of inconsistency in the appropriateness of individual special education learning environments due to the not-yet-complete implementation of the district’s Measure A program. It appears that very positive improvements have been made in special education facilities as a result of the many modernization projects that have been completed in recent years. However, there still are some instances in which the special education facilities are not necessarily accommodating the program needs associated with the program that has been assigned to a given space, such as the lack of adequate toilet and/or changing facilities in a severely disabled classroom space. While these defi ciencies are not widespread, they do still exist in some limited instances. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district should maintain a heightened awareness of the needs associated with the effective delivery of its many special education programs/services and the resultant spe- cial education facility needs. This should result in the development of an overall special education facilities master plan that will serve as a future facility planning guide to help ensure equity between facilities provided for all special education students and special education program services and for those provided for students within other educational programs throughout the district. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: 106 Facilities Management 7.1 Implementation of Class-Size Reduction Professional Standard The district applies for state funding for class-size reduction (CSR) facilities. The district applies for class-size reduction facilities funding annually. Sources and Documentation 1. 2003-04 CSR Operational Application 2. 2003-04 J-7CSR attendance report 3. 2003-04 state apportionments for class-size reduction operations Findings 1. For the 2003-04 fi scal year, no separate state funding was made available for K-3 class- size reduction facilities. 2. The district did apply for and received funding for the 2003-04 K-3 class-size reduction operations, which can be used for both operational and facilities expenses. 3. The 2003-04 CSR program encroached on the general fund, so no state funding remained to assist with the cost of CSR facilities. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district should continue to apply annually for class-size reduction facilities funding in years when funding is available. These applications may also make the district eligible for future state bond funds for class-size reduction. 2. The district should also continue to apply annually for class-size reduction operations funding. 3. The district should refi ne the accounting of the CSR costs to determine if all costs charged to the program are accurate. This will allow the district to determine if any funds are remaining to help with the facilities costs. Standard Implemented: Fully - Sustained November 1, 2004 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 107 7.2 Implementation of Class-Size Reduction Professional Standard The district has provided adequate facilities for the additional classes resulting from the imple- mentation of Class-Size Reduction (CSR). Sources and Documentation 1. Inspection of district sites/facilities 2. Interviews with district staff 3. Review of district Web page 4. Review of approved plans and record drawings 5. Review of the district’s classroom inventory/class utilization worksheet and individual campus use plans Findings 1. The district currently operates CSR programs in grades 1 and 2. This program in Vallejo, as in many other California public school districts, has generally been made possible through available state funds. As the overall budget picture for public education continues to seem somewhat bleak, so does the likelihood that the class-size reduction program will be expanded to include additional grade levels. On a somewhat unrelated but important note, the district has maintained relatively small enrollments at a number of its elemen- tary schools (from a relative standpoint throughout the state of California), and it may be necessary to determine whether or not these lower enrolled schools can operate at an ef- fi ciency level that is consistent with available general fund revenues. 2. The district has provided facilities for additional classes that have resulted through the implementation of CSR. This has been accomplished through the reallocation/modifi ed use of existing spaces, as well as through the acquisition of additional relocatable teach- ing stations. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Continue to monitor classroom enrollment for possible need for additional facilities. 2. Continue the use of permanent classrooms for CSR, supplementing these facilities with portables. Standard Implemented: Fully - Sustained November 1, 2004 Rating: 10 Implementation Scale: 108 Facilities Management 7.3 Implementation of Class-Size Reduction Professional Standard The district has complied with the California Department of Education (CDE) suggested space requirements relative to the provision of educational environments for the implementation of Class Size Reduction (CSR). Sources and Documentation 1. Inspection of district sites/facilities 2. Interviews with district staff Findings 1. In virtually all cases, CSR classes are being conducted in teaching stations that comply with CDE recommendations. 2. In some very limited instances, classes are being conducted in teaching stations that do not meet the CDE-suggested square footage requirements, but other classroom spaces ex- ceed the CDE requirements. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district should maintain an ongoing goal to ensure the provision of fully equitable teaching and learning environments for its CSR classes. Standard Implemented: Fully - Substantially November 1, 2004 Rating: 9 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 109 7.4 Implementation of Class-Size Reduction Professional Standard The district has developed a plan for the provision of permanent facilities in which to house its class-size reduction programs (CSR). Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with district staff 2. Review of district records/plans 3. Inspection of district sites/facilities Findings 1. While the district has done a good job in providing adequate space for the implementa- tion of class-size reduction, no plan is in place for the ultimate provision of permanent facilities in which to house all of its CSR programs. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district should develop a plan to ensure the provision of permanent facilities as a result of its decision to implement class-size reduction programs, although this places an extensive funding burden on the district. The district and its oversight committee should evaluate the relative importance of implementation of this plan in consideration of other district facilities-related needs. This consideration should be included within the district’s self-evaluation of its overall number of operating school facilities and any future change to the district’s facilities utilization plan. 2. Complete a facilities inventory/assessment to determine the actual space allocations for current class-size reduction programs and to clearly identify which of those programs are being implemented in non-permanent facilities vs. permanent facilities. 3. Measure the fi ndings of the inventory/assessment with suggested guidelines from the California Department of Education relative to suggested room size of 960 square feet per classroom. 4. Develop a plan to correct any space and “permanency” defi ciencies that exist in respec- tive district school sites relative to the delivery of instructional services and programs for class-size reduction programs. A fi scal impact associated with the implementation of this plan needs to be developed and considered within the broader context of facilities-related needs within the district. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: 110 Facilities Management 8.1 Facilities Maintenance and Custodial Professional Standard An energy conservation policy should be approved by the Governing Board and implemented throughout the district. Sources and Documentation 1. Energy policy for school design 2. Review of materials provided by district staff 3. Interviews with district staff Findings 1. The district has approved an energy policy that is general in nature and does not describe how it will be applied. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Create a board policy and implement it districtwide. 2. The following items should be considered for inclusion in the policy: • Board commitment to energy effi ciency • Direction to administrators to aggressively implement policy • Energy management shall be a high priority in new construction, modernization, equipment replacement or repair projects • A list of energy design criteria will be produced for use by design teams working for the district. This will be incorporated in the existing district design standards • All sites not part of state-funded modernization shall be made energy effi cient through alternate funding • Identify specifi c items for implementation • All heating and ventilation systems will be turned off at the close of the school day (when classes end) • All systems will be kept off on weekends and holidays • After school and weekend meetings will take place in portable classrooms so large centralized systems do not have to run for a meeting in one classroom • Lights are to be shut off whenever a room becomes unoccupied • Morning warm up of a school site should begin at the latest possible time in order to properly heat classrooms • All rooms will be checked at appropriate times to ensure lighting, heating, and ven- tilation are turned off • Each site should have a designated energy coordinator to implement the policy • Stadium lights (football, soccer, and baseball) shall not be turned on during daytime hours except for repairs and lamp replacement Facilities Management 111 • The district should consider dark campuses at night after the last staff member leaves • Chief site administrators (principals) shall be responsible and held accountable for the results of the energy program at their site • Energy education curriculum shall be included at all levels and disciplines • The district shall implement an energy accounting system, review bills monthly and annually, and track the success of the program • District shall share savings with individual school sites based on their success in an Operational Energy Saving Program • The Energy Management System should be expanded to control all HVAC systems and exterior lighting where cost effective • The Energy Management System should be Web based. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: 112 Facilities Management 8.2 Facilities Maintenance and Custodial Professional Standard Create and maintain a system to track utilities costs, consumption and report on the success of the district’s energy program. An energy analysis has been completed for each site. Sources and Documentation 1. Review of materials provided by district staff 2. Interviews with district staff Findings 1. The district has not implemented a system to account for energy use and utilities expense. 2. Utility bills are observed on a monthly basis with no comparison to past months or past years. 3. There is currently no way to track the results of recently completed “energy projects” and energy effi cient design measures. 4. The district has completed a lighting retrofi t project, which required an energy analysis. However, there are some entire sites and areas at retrofi t sites that were not completed. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. A system should be set up in the Business Offi ce with assistance from Student Housing to log consumption and cost as part of the bill paying process. Reports should be created and sent to Student Housing for review and possible action. 2. Items for review include billing errors, review of billing tariffs, drastic changes in con- sumption and cost, monitoring of projects effect on consumption, and tracking of the en- ergy program. 3. Identify areas that were not retrofi t. Hire a contractor directly, with the assistance of a consultant, to complete this work. Do not hire an energy service company, as in the past, as their management fees are excessive. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 113 8.3 Facilities Maintenance and Custodial Professional Standard Cost-effective, energy-effi cient design should be a top priority for all district construction proj- ects. Sources and Documentation 1. District design standards written by VBN Architects 2. Interviews with Director of Facilities Services and Director of Student Housing Services 3. Interviews with district staff Findings 1. Upon review of the design standards, little can be called “Energy Effi cient Design.” There is a standard for HVAC units of a minimum of 13 SEER and mention of insula- tion without detailing amounts of insulation. There is no mention of any lighting criteria. The section on Energy Management Systems should contain more specifi c detail, such as points lists. There is no process by which proposed energy saving designs can be evalu- ated. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Produce a separate “Energy Design Criteria” section of the Design Standards. In it in- clude standards for lighting, HVAC, Controls, Insulation and other envelope-related measures, orientation, generation, renewable sources of energy, and criteria for compar- ing and accepting energy effi cient design. There are many sources for this type of infor- mation. Currently the state of California has the CHPS Program. There are also many sources outside the state for this information. Some examples are “The Alliance to Save Energy,” “Rebuild America,” “Green Buildings Program,” and a number of architects and consultants who can write these standards for the district. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: 114 Facilities Management 8.4 Facilities Maintenance and Custodial Professional Standard The district should have analyzed the possibility of using alternative energy sources as a means to reducing the fi nancial impact of utilities on the district. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with district staff Findings 1. Ground source heat pumps were reviewed as a source of heating and cooling for the de- sign of the new high school, but rejected. 2. The district has not looked into generation options or the use of other alternative energy sources. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district may want to approach generation in a few ways. First, it can analyze solar, wind, and micro turbines just as it would analyze an energy project, except these tech- nologies have specifi c sensitivities in the areas of noise, durability, space and cost. Many times these technologies can be cost effective with the proper support from the state as well as funding levels as part of new construction projects. Division of the State Architect (DSA) has a program to provide additional funding for energy effi cient design. 2. The criteria for choosing alternative energy sources should be detailed as part of the en- ergy design criteria. 3. The district may want to look into third party programs of allowing a company to build a small generation facility on district-owned land and purchase power on a long-term basis. 4. The district may want to investigate a JPA with other entities to purchase power at a rela- tively low rate. SPURR and REMAC are two JPAs where schools reduced the cost of purchasing natural gas. Another option is purchasing a large percentage of gas from the pipeline company. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 115 8.5 Facilities Maintenance and Custodial Professional Standard Adequate maintenance records and reports are kept, including a complete inventory of supplies, materials, tools, and equipment. All employees required to perform maintenance on school sites are provided with adequate supplies, equipment, and training to perform maintenance tasks in a timely and professional manner. Included in the training is how to inventory supplies and equip- ment and when to order or replenish them. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with Director of Facilities Services 2. Interviews with Facilities Services employees 3. Inventory records 4. Site observation of actual inventory Findings 1. The warehouseman maintains an adequate supply of the majority of the supplies needed to maintain the schools. Specialty items are ordered through open purchase orders with local vendors, but are the exception and not the norm. 2. There is a challenge in keeping an adequate inventory on hand at all times since some of the work performed by the maintenance staff does not have work orders issued to per- form the work. While the employees complete a manual document to report the work per- formed, the information cannot be input into the work order system. This does not help the warehouseman in balancing the inventory. 3. Some of the schools had small inventories of minor maintenance supplies for the custo- dial staff to assist the maintenance staff. 4. The inventory available in the Facilities Services Department was smaller than expected. However, with multiple vendors and open purchase orders available, the need for a larger inventory does not seem necessary. 5. Work orders are on a districtwide computer system that allows the site administrators to see which requests are still pending. It also allows the maintenance staff and administra- tion to anticipate the materials needs for future projects to determine if large materials orders could be made to reduce down time in picking up necessary supplies. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district should continue with the current ordering process to keep an adequate inven- tory of supplies and materials at the main maintenance yard. 2. All work performed by the maintenance staff should be by work order only. Special re- quests should still be input into the work order system so that both time and materials are properly documented. 116 Facilities Management 3. The district should establish a minimum inventory level of both custodial and mainte- nance supplies for each school. 4. Continue to maintain the current inventory so that the likelihood of obsolete or unused inventory is minimized. 5. The district should make sure that all work orders are entered into the system and the status of the work orders is current. Site administrators must have the most current infor- mation possible to determine if a follow-up work order needs to be entered into the work order system. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 117 8.6 Facilities Maintenance and Custodial Professional Standard Procedures are in place for evaluating the work quality of maintenance and operations staff. The quality of the work performed by the maintenance and operations staff is evaluated on a regular basis using a board-adopted procedure that delineates the areas of evaluation and the types of work to be evaluated. Sources and Documentation 1. Board Policy 4215 and Administrative Regulation 4215, dated July 20, 1994 2. Agreement between the district and CSEA Chapter 199 covering the period July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2005 3. Interview with Director of Facilities Services 4. Interview with Manager of Buildings and Grounds 5. Interviews with Facilities Services staff 6. Job descriptions Findings 1. Under the current evaluation process, the Director of Facilities Services and the Manager of Buildings and Grounds evaluate all of the staff who report to them. The manager eval- uates 93 custodial staff, while the director evaluates approximately 40 annually. 2. The evaluations are initiated by the director due to a lack of annual reminders from the Human Resources Department. No notifi cations from Human Resources are disseminated to Facilities Services notifying the director of the mandatory evaluations that must be completed during the year. 3. Evaluations are to be performed annually at a minimum. Evaluations are done more often if an employee is performing at a less-than-acceptable level. 4. Some employees were not sure of the last time they received an evaluation. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district should consider shifting the responsibility for evaluating the custodial staff to the site administrators. The administrators observe the employees' performance or lack of performance on a daily basis, which is critical to the evaluation. Expecting a single super- visor to accurately evaluate 100 employees and still perform his job is not reasonable. 2. The Human Resources Department must create an evaluation notifi cation process so that mandatory evaluations are performed and submitted to Human Resources in a timely manner. The lack of this notifi cation and tracking process could lead to employees mov- ing from probationary to permanent status regardless of their performance. 3. The district should provide in-service training for all supervisory personnel in the proper documentation of personnel standards. Administrative staff should periodically review evaluations for adherence to personnel standards. 118 Facilities Management 4. All employees should receive copies of their completed evaluations and feedback from the supervisor regarding the fi ndings noted in the evaluation. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 119 8.7 Facilities Maintenance and Custodial Professional Standard Major areas of custodial and maintenance responsibilities, and specifi c jobs to be performed, have been identifi ed. Custodial and maintenance personnel have written job descriptions that delineate the major areas of responsibilities that they will be expected to perform and on which they will be evaluated. Sources and Documentation 1. Board policy 2. Interview with Director of Facilities Services 3. Interview with Manager of Buildings and Grounds 4. Agreement between the district and CSEA Chapter 199 for July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2005 5. Job descriptions 6. Interview with sampling of employees Findings 1. There are no board policies describing the employee performance expectations or how the employees would be evaluated based on the expectations. 2. Site personnel feel that they have a good understanding of what is expected of them to perform their jobs properly. While some of them feel that they could do more if allowed, they accept the job duties as explained to them. 3. There is some confusion between when custodial staff can perform minor maintenance projects and when they need to wait until the maintenance staff can do them. 4. Custodial staff state that they have most of the resources necessary to perform their du- ties. Anytime they need supplies, they receive them if they can show the need exists and that previous inventories have been depleted. 5. The tradespersons are concerned about how often they are pulled off a job that is in their area of expertise to help another maintenance person perform a task in another area of ex- pertise. In some cases, this reassignment is just for a day or so, but in some cases, it is an ongoing assignment. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Develop board policies and administrative regulations detailing the expectations of the employees in performing their jobs. 2. Annually review with all Facilities Services staff their job descriptions and anticipated duties so that there is a clear understanding of what is expected of them and how they will be evaluated. 3. Discuss with staff the areas to be covered by either operational or maintenance staff, and how other duties will be assigned and approved. 120 Facilities Management 4. Continue to provide supplies and equipment to site staff to perform minor maintenance and operational tasks. 5. Analyze the current practice of shifting people from the primary job to assist with other maintenance tasks. Determine if the current staffi ng is meeting the changing maintenance needs of the newly modernized schools. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 121 8.8 Facilities Maintenance and Custodial Professional Standard Necessary staff, supplies, tools, and equipment for the proper care and cleaning of the school(s) are available. In order to meet expectations, schools are adequately staffed and staff are provided with the necessary supplies, tools, and equipment as well as the training associated with the proper use of such. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with Director of Facilities Services 2. Interview with Manager of Buildings and Grounds 3. Inventory records 4. Purchase orders for supplies and equipment 5. Site observation of actual inventory Findings 1. Some of the site staff state they have most of the necessary chemicals to perform the vari- ous cleaning needed in the schools. However, some of them feel that they could use ad- ditional training on cleaning practices. 2. The majority of the site custodial personnel state that they have suffi cient supplies and equipment to perform the duties expected of them. This was verifi ed in most cases by the inspector. 3. Cleanliness of the classrooms, hallways, lunch areas, and bathrooms is inconsistent across the district, even with the proper supplies and equipment. Some schools are spot- less while others were in need of some deep cleaning. 4. The inspector received comments from some site personnel that the night custodial crews are not performing adequate cleaning, so the classrooms are not ready for the students the next morning. Some head custodians are required to hurriedly clean up classrooms so that they are presentable for staff and students. 5. With the district in its current fi scal crisis, the adequacy of staffi ng is not measurable. Staff reductions over the years have reduced the number of custodial staff, with little hope of increasing the staff until the district returns to fi scal solvency. 6. Some of the conditions of the schools led the inspector to conclude that some of the cus- todial staff need additional training on proper cleaning practices. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Continue to provide adequate amounts of cleaning supplies to allow custodial staff to per- form at optimal level. 2. Continue to provide adequate supplies and equipment to custodial staff to keep the facili- ties in a clean and presentable condition. 122 Facilities Management 3. Develop minimum cleaning standards for all schools and provide in-service training at the beginning of each school year to stress the importance of meeting these minimum standards. 4. Site administrators should document instances where night custodians are not providing proper cleaning practices and have the Manager of Buildings and Grounds follow up with the employee and the site administrator. 5. As the district recovers from its fi scal crisis, additional custodial staff need to be added to maintain the recently modernized schools and the existing buildings. Proper cleaning and maintenance can extend the life of the buildings. 6. All site personnel responsible for cleaning of the site should receive training at the site for a complete understanding of what chemicals and equipment must be used to maintain a clean and safe campus. 7. Supervisors should evaluate the proper use of the supplies and equipment on a regular ba- sis to verify that site personnel are following the training given to them. 8. If the supervisors fi nd misuse or noncompliance with the training given to site personnel, the fi ndings must be included in the employee’s evaluation. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 123 8.9 Facilities Maintenance and Custodial Professional Standard The district has an effective preventive maintenance program that is scheduled and followed by the maintenance staff. This program includes verifi cation of the completion of work by the super- visor of the maintenance staff. Sources and Documentation 1. Board policy 2. Interview with Director of Facilities Services 3. Interview with Manager of Buildings and Grounds 4. Site observation of actual program being implemented Findings 1. There is no Governing Board policy or administrative regulation relating to preventive maintenance. 2. Faced with the current fi scal crisis, the district is unable to implement an effective pre- ventive maintenance program. 3. During the site observations, some classrooms, both portable and permanent, had the HVAC units on with the doors open, causing an unnecessary strain on the units. Not only does this increase the utility costs to the district, but it could result in the unit requiring additional maintenance above the normal maintenance schedule. 4. The current work order system does not provide preventive maintenance work orders. The Director of Facilities Services would like to implement a new work order software, PM Plus, that would generate the preventive maintenance work orders on a regular sched- ule. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Develop a board policy emphasizing the need for a preventive maintenance program and designate the funding source to pay for the program. 2. Include the implementation of the preventive maintenance program as a part of the fi nan- cial recovery plan to reduce expenditures in the long-range plan. 3. Give examples of how employees of the district can help reduce emergency repairs by following some simple steps like: • Closing the windows and doors when the air conditioning is operating • Turning off lights when they leave • Turning down thermostats after hours 124 Facilities Management 4. Review the PM Plus software with the users and workers prior to implementation to make sure that the work orders provide adequate information for the workers, and for the site administrators to be aware of the monthly visits by the workers. Standard Implemented: Not Implemented November 1, 2004 Rating: 0 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 125 8.10 Facilities Maintenance and Custodial Legal Standard The Governing Board of the district provides clean and operable fl ush toilets for use of pupils. Toilet facilities are adequate and maintained. All buildings and grounds are maintained. [CCR Title §631, CCR Title 5 14030, EC 17576] Sources and Documentation 1. Board policy 2. Interview with Director of Facilities Services 3. Interview with Manager of Buildings and Grounds 4. SB 892, Clean Restroom legislation 5. Site observations verifying conditions of facilities Findings 1. Board Policy 3515 describes security to include locking doors, minimizing fi re hazards, reducing the probability of faulty equipment, and guarding against electrical shock. 2. There is no specifi c process documentation other than submitting a work order to report health and safety issues. 3. Some of the sanitation hazards noticed during the site observations included: • Restrooms with standing water on the fl oors that created a slippery surface and stench • A few boys’ restrooms were so putrid that the inspector could not enter • Ants in water fountain • Some walkways need concrete ground down so that tripping hazard is reduced or eliminated 4. Many of the play fi elds were in need of repair due to the impact of the Measure A mod- ernization. This is scheduled to be completed as one of the last steps in the modernization process. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The Governing Board should revise the board policy to delineate that all sanitation haz- ards are to be corrected immediately. 2. Develop a process so that any health and safety hazards can be reported immediately to the Offi ce of Facilities Services without having to create a work order to authorize the work to be performed. The work order should be fi led as a follow up, but any safety or cleanliness issues should be corrected immediately. 3. Complete the play fi eld improvements as soon as possible to provide students with safe areas to play in during recess and lunch periods. 126 Facilities Management 4. Provide on-site in-service training for all site operational personnel in the area of site safety and cleanliness. 5. Supervisors should periodically review the progress site personnel are making in keeping campuses clean. 6. Supervisors should emphasize the area of safety and cleanliness in the employee’s annual evaluation. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 127 8.11 Facilities Maintenance and Custodial Professional Standard The district has implemented a planned program maintenance system that includes an inven- tory of all facilities and equipment that will require maintenance and replacement. Data should include purchase prices, anticipated life expectancies, anticipated replacement timelines, and budgetary resources necessary to maintain the facilities. Sources and Documentation 1. Board policy 2. Interview with Director of Facilities Services 3. Interview with Manager of Buildings and Grounds Findings 1. The Governing Board does not have a board policy regarding planned program mainte- nance. 2. The Planned Program Maintenance System is a part of the implementation of the PM Plus 4 work order system. The district is in the early stages of implementing PM Plus 4. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Develop a board policy and administrative regulations that delineate the various aspects of the Planned Program Maintenance System. 2. Establish in the board policy a minimum funding level that the district should budget an- nually to support the Planned Program Maintenance System. 3. Establish priorities for maintenance projects. 4. Establish a separate fi nancial account for the Planned Program Maintenance System. 5. Establish the funding necessary to accomplish the repairs for the year. 6. Designate where the funding will come from to accomplish the maintenance require- ments. 7. Using PM Plus 4, determine when the repair or replacement must occur. 8. Calendar the projects to determine whether contracting out may be necessary to accom- plish all of the maintenance projects. 9. Present the fi nancial plan to the board and administration for inclusion in the initial bud- get discussions for the coming year. 128 Facilities Management Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 129 8.12 Facilities Maintenance and Custodial Professional Standard The district has a documented process for assigning routine repair work orders on a priority basis. Sources and Documentation 1. Interview with Director of Facilities Services 2. Interviews with site personnel 3. Interviews with tradespersons Findings 1. Work orders are submitted by the sites to the Facilities Services Department via the net- work. 2. The Director of Facilities Services and his staff review the work orders and determine if the priority submitted by the site is accurate. All health and safety or emergency repairs are given top priority. 3. All other work orders are prioritized by the Director of Facilities Services and his staff and distributed to the staff. 4. The majority of the site administrators and support staff do not like the work order sys- tem. It is seen as slow and diffi cult to enter work orders. There are numerous levels of input and approval before it can be submitted to Facilities Services. 5. Some site personnel state that once a work order is submitted, they are never sure if and when the work will be completed. It is diffi cult to monitor the progress of a work order on the system. 6. Site administrators do not see work orders responded to in a timely manner and are con- fused why some work orders receive immediate attention while others that were submit- ted prior to those currently being executed are still on hold. It appears as if the workers are performing the work orders they want to do fi rst instead of the priority work orders. 7. There is frustration at the sites when they are told to submit a work order even though there have already been multiple work orders submitted for the same repair. 8. There is a concern that, as the Measure A work is completed and the maintenance is turned over to Facilities Services, the work order system will only get worse. 9. It was reported that sometimes work is performed without the issuance of a work order so there is no documentation entered into the work order system noting the time spent and materials used on the repair. 130 Facilities Management Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Continue to utilize a computerized work order system via the network as long as the soft- ware package provides the Facilities Services Department, site administrators and support staff, and tradespersons with the information to perform the repair and monitor the status of a work order. 2. Continue the current work order prioritizing process as long as the prioritization is based on health and safety repairs as the top priority and that all employees are held to the pri- orities. 3. Continue the current distribution of work orders with emphasis on the performance of work orders based on the priorities. 4. Meet with a group of the site administrators and support staff to review the current work order system to determine if enhancements need to be made to the system to provide quicker access and easier monitoring of work orders. If it is determined that the work or- der system does not work, replace it with one that all parties can use. 5. As a part of the meeting recommended in #4 above, review the monitoring system that is part of the work order software package. If additional training or software enhancement is needed, implement it immediately. 6. Improve communications between the Facilities Services Department and the schools, whether through a special phone line to contact the Director or Manager of Buildings and Grounds or the establishment of regular meetings. 7. Eliminate the need for the submission of multiple work orders. Once a work order is sub- mitted, the Facilities Services Department should be held accountable for the monitoring and completion of the work order. 8. Begin long-term planning for the funding of additional staff and improvements to the work order system that will be needed to maintain the schools once the Measure A work is completed. 9. Work orders should be required for all requested work, with the exception of emergency repairs. This should be the only exception. Work orders should be issued for all other work so that time on task and materials inventory can be kept. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 131 9.1 Instructional Program Issues Professional Standard The district has developed a plan for attractively landscaped facilities. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with district staff 2. Review of district records 3. Inspection of school sites Findings 1. The district has developed a plan for limited landscape improvements within most of the district’s recently bid construction projects, although the majority of these improvements are restorative in nature, seeking to return campuses to a condition that is at least as good as before the construction commenced. The landscape plans are not necessarily intended to beautify campus environments. 2. Some of the district staff acknowledged that improved landscaping could have positive impacts upon staff and community and could promote support for the school. 3. Any lack of commitment for attractively landscaped areas appears to be based upon fund- ing defi ciencies, physical site limitations, and potential impacts on grounds staffi ng in the district. 4. The staff generally displayed a positive attitude toward the development of a landscaping improvement plan, but reiterated the staffi ng defi ciencies that currently exist within the Grounds Department. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district should consider the development of a plan to continue to improve the land- scaping at the individual district facilities, while considering the staffi ng realities that ex- ist within the district’s Grounds Department. 2. Conduct an inventory/assessment to determine the actual landscaping conditions that exist at individual district sites, preferably after the completion of all modernization proj- ects. 3. Develop standards of landscaping that are desired at various types of schools (elementary, junior high, high school, special program sites, etc.). 4. Measure the fi ndings of the aforementioned inventory/assessment in Recommendation No. 2 against the standards developed in Recommendation No. 3 to determine needs and defi ciencies. 5. Develop a broad-based set of potential funding sources to assist in the implementation of a district landscaping plan. 132 Facilities Management 6. Take action to correct any landscaping needs and defi ciencies that exist within respective school sites. A fi scal impact associated with these actions needs to be developed and con- sidered within the broader context of other facilities-related needs within the district, and the effect on the staffi ng requirements within the Grounds Department. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 133 9.2 Instructional Program Issues Legal Standard The Governing Board provides a warm, healthful place in which children who bring their own lunches to school may eat their lunch. [EC 17573, CCR Title 5 §14030] Sources and Documentation 1. Board policies 2. On-site observation of cafeterias, lunch areas, and multipurpose rooms 3. Discussions with site staff 4. Discussions with maintenance/operations staff Findings 1. The comfort level of lunch areas was inconsistent. At schools that did have interior eating areas, those areas were generally adequate, warm areas. 2. Most cafeterias and multipurpose rooms had appropriate capacity signage. 3. Eating areas were generally clean; however, some facilities were very old, which made it diffi cult to be perceived as appropriately clean. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. In addition to complying with Education Code 17573, all facilities plans should conform to state standards as specifi ed in the Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 14030. These standards are briefl y and partially summarized below: • Auxiliary areas, such as multipurpose cafeterias, administrative offi ces, and library/ media centers, shall be adequately sized to accommodate the student population and allow adaptation for changing uses • Lighting shall be designed to provide comfortable and adequate levels of illumina- tion • Delivery and service areas shall be located so as to provide vehicle access without jeopardizing the safety of students and staff 2. Plans shall also comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and its regulations that require that facilities be designed and constructed so that they are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities (42 USC 12101-12213, 28 CFR 35). 3. The district must complete the gradual replacement and upgrade of aged cafeteria facili- ties as funds become available through modernization projects, deferred maintenance, or other miscellaneous funds. 4. Maintenance/custodial/cafeteria staff should continue to be trained on the general indus- try cleaning and safety orders. 134 Facilities Management Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 135 9.3 Instructional Program Issues Legal Standard The district has developed and maintains a plan to ensure equality and equity of its facilities throughout the district. [EC 35293] Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with district staff 2. Review of district records 3. Meetings with selected community representatives 4. Inspection of district school sites Findings 1. There is a mildly inconsistent level of equality and equity for the facilities provided throughout the district. 2. There has been a concerted effort to provide facility improvements at nearly all of the schools through the district’s “Measure A—A New Beginning” program. This concerted effort seems to have bridged the gap between any previously perceived and/or real con- cerns relative to equal and equitable facilities throughout the district. Nonetheless, future facility improvements at selected sites throughout the district are still required in order to further improve the equality and equity of the district’s facilities. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. More clearly identifi ed and understood district level standards should be developed with respect to the number and quality of facilities required to accommodate the delivery of instruction to students. Activities are beginning to occur in this area. 2. Specifi c facility discrepancies that exist at respective sites need to be identifi ed and esti- mated costs to remediate any discrepancies need to be developed. This type of informa- tion will continue to add to the future refi nement of the district’s Facilities Master Plan. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: 136 Facilities Management 9.4 Instructional Program Issues Professional Standard All schools shall have adequate lighting, electrical service, heating and ventilation Sources and Documentation 1. Board policy 2. School sites observations to assess the condition of the facilities, including lighting, elec- trical, heating, and ventilation systems 3. Discussions with site staff 4. Discussions with Maintenance/Operations staff Findings 1. Most facilities appeared to have operational heating and ventilating systems (HVAC). 2. BP 7112 requires new air-conditioning when HVAC systems are replaced. This seems to be included in modernization plans. 3. Many facilities have been modernized or are being modernized. 4. Some new HVAC systems needed balancing to avoid conditions that are too hot or too cold. 5. School sites appeared to have adequate power and lighting. 6. Some lighting still needs to be upgraded to provide better lighting and energy effi ciency. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. As modernization funds become available, upgrade all HVAC systems. 2. Ensure that central energy management systems are operational. 3. As modernization funds are available, increase electrical capacity as necessary for each site, and upgrade lighting. Standard Implemented: Fully - Substantially November 1, 2004 Rating: 8 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 137 9.5 Instructional Program Issues Legal Standard Classrooms are free of noise and other barriers to instruction. [EC 32212] Sources and Documentation 1. Board policy 2. Observation of classrooms 3. Interviews with district staff Findings 1. Board policies did not specifi cally address EC 32212. 2. Some classrooms had signifi cant amounts of HVAC noise. 3. Portable classrooms generally had HVAC units turned off, and it is assumed that noise is a factor. 4. Classrooms were generally free from other barriers to instruction. 5. Modernization work appeared to be impacting school instruction minimally. 6. One gymnasium was closed due to lack of power. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Update board policies to incorporate Education Code Section 32212 that expresses the Legislature’s intent that all governing boards formally address the problem of classroom interruptions and adopt a policy to control them. 2. During any construction, the use of the site by contractors should be limited as follows: • The contractor should confi ne operations at the site to areas permitted by law, ordi- nances, permits, and the contract documents, and should not unreasonably encum- ber the site with materials or equipment • Notwithstanding the designation of contract limits or the indication of temporary fences or barricades, the provisions of the contract documents governing certain portions or phases of the work may require that certain operations be carried out beyond such designated limits • Pumping, draining, and control of the designated site should be carried out so as to avoid endangering the work or any adjacent facility or property, or interrupting, restricting, or otherwise infringing or interfering with the district’s use • The contractor should keep the premises and surrounding areas free from accumu- lation of waste materials • The contractor should consider specifying work hours that do not coincide with school hours 138 Facilities Management 3. Review HVAC systems for noise. 4. Consider replacement of HVAC systems in portables if noise is a concern. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 139 9.6 Instructional Program Issues Professional Standard The learning environments provided within respective school sites in the district are conducive to high quality teaching and learning. Sources and Documentation 1. Inspection of district sites/facilities 2. Interviews with district staff 3. Interviews with district parents/community members Findings 1. Learning environments, as currently provided within respective school sites, are generally conducive to quality teaching by the instructional staff and effi cient learning by students. Signifi cant facilities improvement efforts are in place or have been made in large part be- cause of voter support for the Measure A facilities improvement bonds and the district’s pursuit and receipt of a signifi cant amount of state funding. While additional improve- ments are required throughout the district, there is evidence of a systematic plan through the district’s “Measure A—A New Beginning” program to address these needs over time. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. As future facility planning occurs within the district, student learning and the delivery of quality instructional programs must form the basis of any determination for modifi cations to existing facilities and the development of new facilities. 2. A commitment should be made toward the identifi cation and articulation of district stan- dards for student learning and for suggested methods for delivery of instruction. This commitment should form the basis for all deliberations and decisions regarding modifi ca- tions to existing facilities and development of new facilities. 3. Instructional staff should be included as an integral and participating member of all facili- ties planning efforts that lead to modifi cations and/or additions to existing facilities and for any potential new school sites. It is suggested that student representation be included on planning committees for secondary school facility projects. 4. A strong linkage needs to continue to be fostered between the planned expenditure of capital facilities funds and the improvement of learning environments provided for stu- dents and staff. Facilitation of the delivery of high quality instruction must be the over- riding concern when capital facility expenditure plans are being developed. This concept needs to be the cornerstone of activity and development of recommendations as they are prepared and presented to the board. 140 Facilities Management Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 141 10.1 Community Use of Facilities Professional Standard The district has a plan to promote community involvement in schools. Sources and Documentation 1. Adopted district board policies 2. District Civic Center policy 3. District Civic Center implementation procedures 4. Site utilization records 5. District newsletters, press releases, community forum summary reports Findings 1. The district actively promotes community use of facilities. Procedures, pricing, and implementation clearly favor such activity. The district has aggressively marketed the need for improvement in district facilities. These efforts culminated in passage of a local school bond. 2. The activity level directed toward community involvement in facilities continues even after passage of the bond. The Civic Center procedures/application/rules and regulations for community use of facilities foster such use. The policy is clear, easy to comprehend, and complete. A detailed application was available and helpful in guiding members of the public through the process. 3. The board has adopted Board Policy 1330 regarding Community Use of Facilities. 4. The one-page application for use of facilities is usually initiated at the school site, with district-level approval in the Facilities Services Department. The form itself is very com- prehensive and complete, but was still easy to use. 5. The district’s Civic Center program is well utilized by the community. Records refl ect that many community groups regularly access the district’s facilities. The participating groups range from school-related groups to church groups and youth athletic leagues. Pe- riods of use range from less than two hours to long-term use for weeks, months, or even longer. 6. Staffi ng for issuance of permits has been reduced and the function has been transferred from the Student Housing Department to the Facilities Services Department with no cor- responding transfer of staff. However, both the Facilities Services Director and the offi ce manager who actually performs much of the work are very knowledgeable of the process. 7. There was little evidence of efforts to directly publicize or promote use of the district’s facilities. Much of the public information had as its primary purpose promotion of prog- ress on bond-funded projects. The district has a need to communicate with the public on a number of higher priority areas at this time, but the Civic Center Act requires a greater publicity effort. 142 Facilities Management Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. Application processing is labor intensive, time consuming, and requires a person with good interpersonal skills to interact with the public. Appropriate staffi ng should be pro- vided and the cost of administration should be included in the determination of allowable costs. 2. The district should consider making the Civic Center application form available in lan- guages other than English. 3. The district should develop public information materials that promote community use of facilities. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 7 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 143 10.2 Community Use of Facilities Legal Standard Education Code Section 38130 establishes terms and conditions of school facility use by commu- nity organizations, in the process requiring establishment of both “direct cost” and “fair market” rental rates, specifying what groups have which priorities and fee schedules. Sources and Documentation 1. Board policy 2. Internal accounting records 3. District “Policy and Procedures for Renting School District Property” 4. District “Facilities Use Permit” Findings 1. Implementations of the Civic Center Act The district implementation of its Civic Center obligations is adequate and unquestion- ably within the spirit and letter of the Education Code. Distinction is appropriately made between types of groups (nonprofi t vs. for profi t, school/youth vs. other, church associa- tion) and the appropriate fee schedules (free, direct cost, fair market) are applied. A dis- tinction is also made between occasional short-term use and longer-term, more permanent use. 2. Fee Schedules The district has in the past budgeted resources to provide these services, instituting fees to cover utilities and supervision after school hours. The Civic Center Act allows the district to recover these costs as part of the fee charged if an appropriate justifi cation study has been performed. A partial study was performed in 2000 but had not been updated, even though fees have been revised since then. Fee schedules are not supported by current calculations of actual expense. The fees to be charged have recently been revised to increase them to levels more refl ective of actual costs incurred. Though the study required by the act to justify fees had not been complet- ed recently and was not current, the increases appear justifi ed and should be supported by the next study. 3. Rates Charged The rates charged for both “direct cost” and “fair market,” which had fallen below estab- lished practical norms, have recently been increased. This means that the general fund, which had been subsidizing public use of facilities by incurring an encroachment due to community participation, should be made whole from increased fees. Requests for waiver of charges are reviewed and approved by the Director of Facilities Services. 4. School Site Involvement School sites are contacted prior to fi nalization of Facility Use Permits to avoid schedule confl icts with school activities. Schools have “veto power” over use of their facilities. 144 Facilities Management Additionally, school use is now coordinated primarily by use of an extensive locally de- veloped scheduling routine that is exemplary. School sites submit use schedules for their facilities that are entered into a database in Facilities Services. When a request for use of a particular facility is requested, the Facilities Services Department offi ce manager can instantly identify, by type, date, and location, which facilities are available to meet that need. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district should prepare a comprehensive study of allowable costs and charges for community use of facilities. The results of the study should be presented to the Governing Board for discussion and adoption. 2. The board should adopt a formal cost justifi cation study regarding the pricing of commu- nity use of district facilities. 3. The district should also consider raising rates periodically to accurately refl ect current costs of providing custodial services, utilities, and other services and to avoid a cycle of encroachments followed by large increases. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 145 10.3 Community Use of Facilities Professional Standard The district maintains comprehensive records and controls on civic center implementation and cash management. Sources and Documentation 1. Board policy 2. Internal accounting records 3. District “Policy and Procedures for Renting School District Property” 4. District “Facility Use Permit” Findings 1. Internal Control Internal control procedures had been implemented and, with the exceptions listed below, appeared to be effective. • Permit forms are pre-numbered, but there is no control on their use because there is only one series of numbers and schools use the forms issued to them at different rates. • Applications and invoices are handled by one person and payments are handled by a different person; this is a major positive internal control. • Checks are secured in the Facilities Services area and remitted to Accounting promptly. • The district requires advance payment and does not accept cash payments, only checks. This is another key feature that promotes internal control. • Invoices are prepared at the time of application and are submitted to Accounting promptly. 2. Handling of Payments Payments, once remitted to Accounting, appear to be handled properly. The Facilities Services Director was very knowledgeable of procedures and sensitive to internal control issues. 3. Records of Use and Charges Site-by-site records are maintained of each facility use permit. There were appropriate checkpoints at each step to ensure compliance with requirements that critical items, such as insurance documents, are appropriately prepared and fi led. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district should use pre-numbered forms, controlled by using a separate numbering series for each major school. 146 Facilities Management 2. The district should maintain activity logs to provide adequate transaction history and to forecast use rates and demand for particular facilities. 3. The district should recognize the opportunities the scheduling program presents and en- courage continued cooperation between school sites and the district offi ce to keep it up to date. 4. The district should request that its independent auditors address the internal controls in this area in each year’s annual audit. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 147 11.1 Communication Professional Standard The district’s public information offi ce should coordinate a full apprisal to students, staff, and community of the condition of the district’s facilities and of efforts to rectify any substandard condition. Sources and Documentation 1. Staff bulletins 2. District Web site 3. Press release fi les 4. Distribution lists 5. Newsletters 6. Newspaper clip fi les 7. Radio and television new scripts 8. Public forum MS PowerPoint fi les Findings 1. The district has, as a part of its past bond campaigns, established an effective public rela- tions program. At the present time, the district is not actively engaged in a bond election and the level of effort directed toward public information is lower. 2. The district Web site, board presentations, and Bond Oversight Committee updates are effectively used to communicate with the public. All of the materials reviewed were pro- vided in English only. 3. The district has a Bond Oversight Committee that meets regularly and is supportive of rigorous standards and accountability for use of bond, maintenance, and facilities fund- ing. 4. School site meetings and board meetings are also used as effective vehicles for communi- cating facility condition and needs. 5. The district currently uses a consultant for much of its public relations effort; the consul- tant advised the review team that most of her efforts are devoted to higher priority areas than facilities, given the problems facing the district at this time. 6. The Student Housing Department was very active in providing materials advising the board and public about the condition of district facilities. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district should consider producing at least some of its facilities-related publications in a language other than English. 2. Most of the facilities-related publicity material reviewed was generated and distributed by the Student Housing Department. The district should consider other means of distribu- 148 Facilities Management tion as well, for example, as part of an overall districtwide publicity effort, especially if another facilities bond election is anticipated. 3. The district should direct its public information consultant to incorporate progress in the improvement of facilities as part of efforts to inform the public about the district. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 149 11.2 Communication Professional Standard The district provides clear and comprehensive communication to staff of its standards and plans. Sources and Documentation 1. Facilities Construction Plan 2. Interoffi ce memoranda 3. Department of Student Housing and Operations Memoranda 4. District department goals and objectives 5. Materials provided to the Measure A and AA bond oversight committee 6. Staff interviews Findings 1. Facility Standards In some areas, the district facilities department has actively upgraded or implemented entirely new facilities standards. These standards are clearly expressed in the facilities construction planning information provided to the board and to the Bond Oversight Com- mittee. 2. Long-Range Planning Continual review of needs and a comprehensive assessment of long-range facility needs have put the district in a good position to communicate its standards and condition. The district has a good array of facilities planning documents and has taken care to present them to stakeholders groups, such the Bond Oversight Committee. 3. Communication of Plans and Standards Standards are more meaningful when publicized and acted upon, therefore, continued ef- forts at communication will be needed. The Bond Oversight Committee packages were very good, but communication to the broader audience was hindered by the lack of a comprehensive district public information plan that includes facilities information. Recommendations and Improvement Plan 1. The district has reduced the level of effort it devotes to conducting and then communi- cating the planning process to interested stakeholders since the last bond campaign. The district should include facilities needs and conditions in a comprehensive district public information plan. 2. The district Student Housing and Facilities Services Departments are providing very good informational material. The material should be made available through the district Web site to avoid printing and storage costs. 3. Facilities standards and plans are not incorporated into a single document; consolidation would be helpful. 150 Facilities Management 4. The district relies too heavily on the Student Housing and Facilities Services Departments to carry out its communication responsibilities. The Public Information Offi cer should as- sume greater responsibility for coordination of communication efforts. Standard Implemented: Partially November 1, 2004 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: Facilities Management 151 152 Facilities Management Nov. May Standard to be addressed 2004 2005 Rating Focus 1.1 LEGAL STANDARD - SCHOOL SAFETY All school administrators are thoroughly familiar with the Cali- fornia Department of Education, Civil Defense and Disaster Plan- Not ning Guide for School Offi cials, 1972. [EC 32000-32004, 32040, Rated 35295-35297, 38132, 46390-46392, 49505, GC 3100, 8607, CCR Title 5 §550, 560, Title 19 §2400] 1.2 LEGAL STANDARD - SCHOOL SAFETY The district includes the appropriate security devices in the 5 design of new buildings as well as in modernized buildings. [EC 32020, 32211, 35294-35294.9, 39670-39675] 1.3 LEGAL STANDARD - SCHOOL SAFETY The district has developed a plan of security that includes 3 ❑ adequate measures of safety and protection of people and property. [EC 32020, 32211, 35294-35294.9] 1.4 LEGAL STANDARD - SCHOOL SAFETY The district ensures that the custodial and maintenance staffs are regularly informed of restrictions pertaining to the stor- 4 age and disposal of fl ammable or toxic materials. [EC 49341, 49401.5, 49411, F&AC 12981, H&SC 25163, 25500-25520, LC 6360-6363, CCR Title 8 §5194] 1.5 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - SCHOOL SAFETY The district has a documented process for issuing master and sub-master keys. A districtwide standardized process for the 4 issuance of keys to employees is followed by all district adminis- trators. 1.6 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - SCHOOL SAFETY Bus loading and unloading areas, delivery areas, and parking and parent loading/unloading areas are monitored on a regular 4 basis to ensure the safety of the students, staff and community. Students, employees and the public feel safe at all times on school premises. 1.7 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - SCHOOL SAFETY Outside lighting is properly placed and monitored on a regular basis to ensure the operability/adequacy of such lighting and to ensure safety while activities are in progress in the evening hours. Outside lighting provides suffi cient illumination to allow 2 for the safe passage of students and the public during after- hours activities. Lighting also provides security personnel with suffi cient illumination to observe any illegal activities on cam- pus. The identifi ed subset of standards appears in bold print. These standards, indicated by ❑, will be targeted for in- depth review for the May 2005 report. Facilities Management 153 Nov. May Standard to be addressed 2004 2005 Rating Focus 1.8 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - SCHOOL SAFETY The district has a graffi ti and vandalism abatement plan that is followed by all district employees. The district provides 4 ❑ district employees with suffi cient resources to meet the requirements of the abatement plan. 1.9 LEGAL STANDARD - SCHOOL SAFETY The district has on fi le written plans describing procedures to be employed in case of emergency. [EC 32000-32004, 32040, 5 35295-35297, 38132, 46390-46392, 49505, GC 3100, 8607] [CCR Title 8, §3220] 1.10 LEGAL STANDARD - SCHOOL SAFETY Each elementary and intermediate school in the district con- ducts a fi re drill at least once a month. Each secondary school 4 conducts a fi re drill not less than twice every school year. [EC 32000-32004, 32040, CCR Title 5 §550] 1.11 LEGAL STANDARD - SCHOOL SAFETY Maintenance/custodial personnel have knowledge of chemical compounds used in school programs that include the potential 3 hazards and shelf life. [EC 49341, 49401.5, 49411, F&AC 12981, H&SC 25163, 25500-25520, LC 6360-6363, CCR Title 8 §5194] 1.12 LEGAL STANDARD - SCHOOL SAFETY Building examinations are performed, and required actions are 4 taken by the Governing Board upon report of unsafe conditions. [EC 17367] 1.13 LEGAL STANDARD - SCHOOL SAFETY Each school that is entirely enclosed by a fence or partial build- ings has a gate of suffi cient size to permit the entrance of 10 ambulances, police and fi re fi ghting equipment. Locking devices are designed to permit ready entrance. [EC 32020] 1.14 LEGAL STANDARD - SCHOOL SAFETY Sanitary, neat and clean conditions of the school premises 2 ❑ exist and the premises are free from conditions that would create a fi re hazard. [CCR Title 5 §633] 1.15 LEGAL STANDARD - SCHOOL SAFETY The Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) requires peri- 6 odic inspections of facilities to identify conditions. [CCR Title 8 §3203] 1.16 LEGAL STANDARD - SCHOOL SAFETY Appropriate fi re extinguishers exist in each building and current 6 inspection information is available. [CCR Title 8 §1922(a)] The identifi ed subset of standards appears in bold print. These standards, indicated by ❑, will be targeted for in- depth review for the May 2005 report. 154 Facilities Management Nov. May Standard to be addressed 2004 2005 Rating Focus 1.17 LEGAL STANDARD - SCHOOL SAFETY All exits are free of obstructions. [CCR Title 8 §3219] 6 1.18 LEGAL STANDARD - SCHOOL SAFETY A comprehensive school safety plan exists for the prevention 4 ❑ of campus crime and violence. [EC 35294-35294.9] 1.19 LEGAL STANDARD - SCHOOL SAFETY Requirements are followed pertaining to underground storage 8 tanks. [H&SC 25292, CCR Title 26 §477, Title 23 § 2610] 1.20 LEGAL STANDARD - SCHOOL SAFETY All asbestos inspection and asbestos work completed is per- 6 formed by Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) accredited individuals. [EC 49410.5, 40 CFR Part 763] 1.21 LEGAL STANDARD - SCHOOL SAFETY All playground equipment meets safety code regulations and is inspected in a timely fashion as to ensure the safety of the 6 students. [EC 44807, GC 810-996.6, H&SC 24450 Chapter 4.5, 115725-115750, PRC 5411, CCR Title 5 §5552] 1.22 LEGAL STANDARD - SCHOOL SAFETY Safe work practices exist with regard to boiler and fi red pressure 6 vessels. [CCR Title 8 §782] 1.23 LEGAL STANDARD - SCHOOL SAFETY The district maintains Materials Safety Data Sheets. [EC 49341, 2 49401.5, 49411, F&AC 12981, LC 6360-6363, CCR Title 8 §5194] 1.24 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - SCHOOL SAFETY The district maintains a comprehensive employee safety pro- gram. Employees are made aware of the district safety program 3 and the district provides in-service training to employees on the requirements of the safety program. 1.25 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - SCHOOL SAFETY The district conducts periodic fi rst aid training for employees 0 assigned to school sites. 2.1 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITY PLANNING The district has a long-range school facilities master plan. 3 ❑ 2.2 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITY PLANNING The district possesses a California State Department of Education 10 Facilities Planning and Construction Guide (dated 1991). The identifi ed subset of standards appears in bold print. These standards, indicated by ❑, will be targeted for in- depth review for the May 2005 report. Facilities Management 155 Nov. May Standard to be addressed 2004 2005 Rating Focus 2.3 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITY PLANNING The district seeks state and local funds. 6 2.4 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITY PLANNING The district has a functioning facility planning committee. 7 2.5 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITY PLANNING The district has a properly staffed and funded facility planning 5 department. 2.6 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITY PLANNING The district has developed and implemented an annual capital 7 planning budget. 2.7 LEGAL STANDARD - FACILITY PLANNING The district has standards for real property acquisition and dis- 5 posal. [EC 39006, 17230-17233] 2.8 LEGAL STANDARD - FACILITY PLANNING The district seeks and obtains waivers from the State Allocation 0 Board for continued use of any nonconforming facilities. [EC 17284, 17285] 2.9 LEGAL STANDARD - FACILITY PLANNING The district has established and utilizes a selection process for 10 the selection of licensed architectural/engineering services. [GC 17302] 2.10 LEGAL STANDARD - FACILITY PLANNING The district assesses its local bonding capacity and monitors its 10 legal bonding limits. [EC 15100, EC 15100, EC 15330] 2.11 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITY PLANNING The district has developed a process to determine debt capacity. 10 2.12 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITY PLANNING The district is aware of and monitors the assessed valuation of 10 taxable property within its boundaries. 2.13 LEGAL STANDARD - FACILITY PLANNING The district collects statutory school fees. [EC 17620, GC 65995, 6 66000] 2.14 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITY PLANNING The district has developed an asset management plan. 0 ❑ The identifi ed subset of standards appears in bold print. These standards, indicated by ❑, will be targeted for in- depth review for the May 2005 report. 156 Facilities Management Nov. May Standard to be addressed 2004 2005 Rating Focus 2.15 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITY PLANNING The district has pursued state funding for joint-use projects 0 through the fi ling of applications through the Offi ce of Public School Construction and the State Allocation Board. 2.16 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITY PLANNING The district has established and utilizes an organized methodol- 7 ogy of prioritizing and scheduling projects. 2.17 PR0FESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITY PLANNING The district complies with California Department of Education 0 (CDE) recommendations relative to school site sizing. 2.18 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITY PLANNING The district distributes facility funding in an equitable manner 10 to all communities served and to all school levels. 2.19 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITY PLANNING A district that has passed a general obligation bond has created a Citizens Oversight Committee to ensure the appropriateness of 10 expenditures related to the passage of the district's local school bond measure. 3.1 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT AND MOD- ERNIZATION The district has a restricted deferred maintenance fund and those funds are expended for maintenance purposes only. The 7 deferred maintenance fund is a stand-alone fund refl ecting the revenues and expenses for the major maintenance projects ac- complished during the year. 3.2 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT AND MOD- ERNIZATION The district has pursued state funding for deferred maintenance 0 - critical hardship needs by fi ling an application(s) through the Offi ce of Public School Construction and the State Allocation Board. [State Allocation Board Regulation §1866] 3.3 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT AND MOD- ERNIZATION The district applies to the State Allocation Board for facilities 6 funding for all applicable projects, and consistently reviews and monitors its eligibility for state funding so as to capitalize upon maximal funding opportunities. The identifi ed subset of standards appears in bold print. These standards, indicated by ❑, will be targeted for in- depth review for the May 2005 report. Facilities Management 157 Nov. May Standard to be addressed 2004 2005 Rating Focus 3.4 LEGAL STANDARD - FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT AND MODERNIZA- TION 6 The district maintains a plan for the maintenance and modern- ization of its facilities. [EC 17366] 3.5 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT AND MOD- ERNIZATION The district establishes and implements interim housing plans 9 for use during the construction phase of modernization projects and/or additions to existing facilities. 3.6 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT AND MOD- ERNIZATION 5 The district has established and maintains a system for tracking the progress of individual projects. 3.7 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT AND MODERNIZATION 0 ❑ Furniture and equipment items are routinely included within the scope of modernization projects. 3.8 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT AND MOD- ERNIZATION 8 Refurbishing, modernization, and new construction projects should take into account technology infrastructure needs. 3.9 LEGAL STANDARD - FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT AND MODERNIZA- TION The district obtains approval of plans and specifi cations from the 8 Division of the State Architect and the Offi ce of Public School Construction (when required) prior to the award of a contract to the lowest responsible bidder. [EC 17263, 17267] 3.10 LEGAL STANDARD - FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT AND MODERNIZA- TION 6 All relocatables in use throughout the district meet statutory requirements. [EC 17292] 3.11 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT AND MOD- ERNIZATION The annual deferred maintenance contribution is made correctly. 10 The district annually transfers the maximum amount that the district would be eligible for in matching funds from the state. The identifi ed subset of standards appears in bold print. These standards, indicated by ❑, will be targeted for in- depth review for the May 2005 report. 158 Facilities Management Nov. May Standard to be addressed 2004 2005 Rating Focus 3.12 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT AND MOD- ERNIZATION The district actively manages the deferred maintenance projects. The district reviews the fi ve-year deferred maintenance plan an- 7 nually to remove any completed projects and include any newly eligible projects. The district also verifi es that the expenses performed during the year were included in the state approved fi ve-year deferred maintenance plan. 3.13 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT AND MOD- ERNIZATION The staff within the district is knowledgeable of procedures 5 within the Offi ce of Public School Construction (OPSC) and the Division of the State Architect (DSA). 4.1 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECTS The district maintains an appropriate structure for the effective 5 management of its construction projects. 4.2 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECTS Change orders are processed and receive prior approval from 8 required parties before being implemented within respective construction projects. 4.3 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECTS The district maintains appropriate project records and drawings. 4 4.4 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECTS Each Inspector of Record (IOR) assignment is properly approved. 9 5.1 LEGAL STANDARD - COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC CONTRACTING LAWS AND PROCEDURES 7 The district complies with formal bidding procedures. [GC 54202, 54204, PCC 20111] 5.2 LEGAL STANDARD - COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC CONTRACTING LAWS AND PROCEDURES 7 The district has a procedure for requests for quotes/proposals. [GC 54202, 54204, PCC 20111] 5.3 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC CON- TRACTING LAWS AND PROCEDURES The district maintains fi les of confl ict-of-interest statements and 7 complies with legal requirements. Confl ict of interest statements are collected annually and kept on fi le. The identifi ed subset of standards appears in bold print. These standards, indicated by ❑, will be targeted for in- depth review for the May 2005 report. Facilities Management 159 Nov. May Standard to be addressed 2004 2005 Rating Focus 5.4 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC CON- TRACTING LAWS AND PROCEDURES The district ensures that biddable plans and specifi cations are 8 developed through its licensed architects/engineers for respec- tive construction projects. 5.5 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC CON- TRACTING LAWS AND PROCEDURES 6 The district ensures that requests for progress payments are carefully evaluated. 5.6 LEGAL STANDARD - COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC CONTRACTING LAWS AND PROCEDURES 7 The district maintains contract award/appeal processes. [GC 54202, 54204, PCC 2011] 5.7 LEGAL STANDARD - COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC CONTRACTING LAWS AND PROCEDURES The district maintains internal control, security, and confi denti- 7 ality over the bid submission and award processes. [GC 54202, 54204, PCC 20111] 6.1 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - SPECIAL EDUCATION FACILITIES The district complies with California Department of Education 6 (CDE) requirements relative to the provision of Special Education facilities. 6.2 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - SPECIAL EDUCATION FACILITIES The district provides facilities for its special education programs that ensure equity with other educational programs within the 6 district and provide appropriate learning environments in rela- tion to educational program needs. 7.1 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - IMPLEMENTATION OF CLASS-SIZE REDUCTION The district applies for state funding for class size reduction fa- 10 cilities. The district applies for class size reduction (CSR) facili- ties funding annually. 7.2 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - IMPLEMENTATION OF CLASS-SIZE REDUCTION The district has provided adequate facilities for the additional 10 classes resulting from the implementation of class size reduc- tion. The identifi ed subset of standards appears in bold print. These standards, indicated by ❑, will be targeted for in- depth review for the May 2005 report. 160 Facilities Management Nov. May Standard to be addressed 2004 2005 Rating Focus 7.3 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - IMPLEMENTATION OF CLASS-SIZE REDUCTION The district has complied with CDE suggested space require- 9 ments relative to the provision of educational environments for the implementation of class size reduction. 7.4 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - IMPLEMENTATION OF CLASS-SIZE REDUCTION 5 The district has developed a plan for the provision of permanent facilities in which to house its CSR programs. 8.1 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND CUSTODIAL 2 ❑ An energy conservation policy has been approved by the board of education and implemented throughout the district. 8.2 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND CUSTODIAL The district uses and maintains a system to track utility 5 ❑ costs and consumption, and to report on the success of the district’s energy program. An energy analysis has been com- pleted for each site. 8.3 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND CUSTODIAL 2 ❑ Cost-effective, energy-effi cient design has been made a top priority for all district construction projects. 8.4 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND CUS- TODIAL The district has analyzed the possibility of using alternative 1 energy sources as a means of reducing the fi nancial impact of utilities on the district. 8.5 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND CUS- TODIAL Adequate maintenance records and reports are kept, including a complete inventory of supplies, materials, tools and equipment. All employees required to perform maintenance on school sites 5 are provided with adequate supplies, equipment and training to perform maintenance tasks in a timely and professional manner. Included in the training is how to inventory supplies and equip- ment and when to order or replenish them. The identifi ed subset of standards appears in bold print. These standards, indicated by ❑, will be targeted for in- depth review for the May 2005 report. Facilities Management 161 Nov. May Standard to be addressed 2004 2005 Rating Focus 8.6 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND CUSTODIAL Procedures are in place for evaluating the work quality of maintenance and operations staff. The quality of the work 3 ❑ performed by the maintenance and operations staff is evalu- ated on a regular basis using a board-adopted procedure that delineates the areas of evaluation and the types of work to be evaluated. 8.7 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND CUS- TODIAL Major areas of custodial and maintenance responsibilities and specifi c jobs to be performed have been identifi ed. Custodial 4 and maintenance personnel have written job descriptions that delineate the major areas of responsibilities that they will be expected to perform and on which they will be evaluated. 8.8 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND CUS- TODIAL Necessary staff, supplies, tools and equipment for the proper care and cleaning of the school(s) are available. In order to 4 meet expectations, schools are adequately staffed and staff are provided with the necessary supplies, tools and equipment as well as the training associated with the proper use of such. 8.9 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND CUSTODIAL The district has an effective written preventive maintenance 0 ❑ program that is scheduled and followed by the maintenance staff. This program includes verifi cation of the completion of work by the supervisor of the maintenance staff. 8.10 LEGAL STANDARD - FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND CUSTODIAL The Governing Board of the district provides clean and opera- ble fl ush toilets for the use of pupils. Toilet facilities are ad- 2 ❑ equate and maintained. All buildings and grounds are main- tained. [CCR Title 5 § 631, CCR Title 5 14030, EC 17576] 8.11 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND CUS- TODIAL The district has implemented a planned program maintenance system that includes an inventory of all facilities and equipment 2 that will require maintenance and replacement. Data should include purchase prices, anticipated life expectancies, antici- pated replacement timelines and budgetary resources necessary to maintain the facilities. The identifi ed subset of standards appears in bold print. These standards, indicated by ❑, will be targeted for in- depth review for the May 2005 report. 162 Facilities Management Nov. May Standard to be addressed 2004 2005 Rating Focus 8.12 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND CUSTODIAL 2 ❑ The district has a documented process for assigning routine repair work orders on a priority basis. 9.1 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM ISSUES The district has developed a plan for attractively landscaped 5 ❑ facilities. 9.2 LEGAL STANDARD - INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM ISSUES The Governing Board provides a warm, healthful place in which 7 children who bring their own lunches to school may eat their lunch. [EC 17573, CCR Title 5 §14030] 9.3 LEGAL STANDARD - INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM ISSUES The district has developed and maintains a plan to ensure 7 equality and equity of its facilities throughout the district. [EC 35293] 9.4 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM ISSUES All schools have adequate lighting, electrical service, heating 8 and ventilation. 9.5 LEGAL STANDARD - INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM ISSUES Classrooms are free of noise and other barriers to instruction. 6 [EC 32212] 9.6 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM ISSUES The learning environments provided within respective school 6 sites within the district are conducive to high quality teaching and learning. 10.1 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - COMMUNITY USE OF FACILITIES The district has a plan to promote community involvement in 7 schools. 10.2 LEGAL STANDARD - COMMUNITY USE OF FACILITIES Education Code Section 38130 establishes terms and conditions of school facility use by community organizations, in the process 5 requiring establishment of both “direct cost” and “fair market” rental rates, specifying what groups have which priorities and fee schedules. “ 10.3 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - COMMUNITY USE OF FACILITIES The district maintains comprehensive records and controls on 6 civic center implementation and cash management. The identifi ed subset of standards appears in bold print. These standards, indicated by ❑, will be targeted for in- depth review for the May 2005 report. Facilities Management 163 Nov. May Standard to be addressed 2004 2005 Rating Focus 11.1 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - COMMUNICATION The district’s public information offi ce coordinates a full ap- prisal to students, staff and community of the condition of 6 the district’s facilities and of efforts to rectify any substandard conditions. 11.2 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD - COMMUNICATION The district provides clear and comprehensive communication to 6 staff of its facilities standards and plans. The identifi ed subset of standards appears in bold print. These standards, indicated by ❑, will be targeted for in- depth review for the May 2005 report. 164 Facilities Management