The state’s multi-billion dollar investment in local school buildings involves a cumbersome, duplicative and time-consuming multi-agency approval process that fails to review important elements of the projects. The state needs a facility approval process that ensures the safety and financial security of school sites and construction, without delaying or adding cost to a project.

With the passage of Propositions 1A in 1998, 47 in 2002 and 55 in 2004, the state approval of school facilities has risen by over 300 percent, with up to 4,000 school projects submitted for review and approval each year. The approval cycle for state-funded school construction involves a number of agencies and can take 18 months or longer to complete.[1]

The school construction approval and state funding process requires schools to submit applications and design drawings for approval by a minimum of four oversight agencies for different reasons and, depending on the site, as many as 40 other state entities.[2] The review process is sequential, with very little concurrent review or collaboration between agencies. [3] The four required agencies and their approval responsibilities are shown in Exhibit 1 below, in the order of approval. The additional 40 state entities that are occasionally part of the process are shown in Exhibit 2.

Applications and drawings are submitted in paper format and flow through the process one agency at a time. DGS-DSA estimates that “wait states,” or the time between the submittal and actual review time in the sequential process, as well as correction cycles, can add up to nine months to the overall process. [6]

Following the passage of the recent statewide bonds cited above, in 1998, 2002 and 2004, workload, approval delay and political pressure to speed the process up have increased. [7] The passage of Senate Bill (SB) 50 in 1998 was meant to streamline the project approval process. Two key components of SB 50 required DGS-DSA to contract with non-state architectural approval firms to provide a plan-check alternative, and required OPSC to significantly streamline the approval process by reducing the number of steps and forms involved in the process. The changes improved the process, but since SB 50’s passage, new regulations have begun to slow approvals again. 8

The following is a description of the facility approval process for schools receiving funding from the state. Exhibits 3 and 4 show full diagrams of this process. Public schools not funded by the state must still receive CDE, DTSC and DGS-DSA approval.

Exhibit 3 [9]
Approval Process for School Sites

Exhibit 4 [10]
Approval Process for School Plans

As an optional first step, a school district may ask DGS-OPSC to determine the state funding eligibility at the outset of the planning process. This can help districts to determine the amount that they can realistically expect from the state for a project.

A school district building a new school must obtain site approval from the state. The main entity responsible for school site approval is CDE’s School Facilities Planning Division (CDE-SFPD). The first step in this process is for the division to preapprove sites for school districts. This allows the districts to move forward towards purchasing the site with the reasonable assurance that the site will be acceptable to the state when the actual approval happens. When reviewing sites for preapproval, the CDE-SFPD considers issues of safety, educational adequacy, joint use potential, neighborhood impact, ease of purchase and development, environmental impacts, and maintainability.

After a district has received preapproval for a number of sites, they choose a preferred site and begin a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation process and initiate a site approval process with DTSC. DTSC performs a fee-for-service review of a district’s environmental toxicity test results from a site and approves sites as clean or cleaned to a certain standard. Depending on the expertise of the district or their consultant, and the cleanliness of the site, this process can take from a few months to a year or longer. The greatest determinant of site review and cleanup time and costs seems to be the district consultants’ levels of expertise and understanding of the state process. 11

One of the districts’ complaints is that DTSC currently lacks a standards-based process that would allow for a district to have tests performed for simple verification of compliance. Instead, DTSC has a site-specific process that requires a more extensive interaction between it and the districts. This increased interaction adds time and money to the project, more or less depending on the school’s consultant and the site specifics. [12] While this allows for flexibility in the approval of sites without a clear understanding of environmental hazards thresholds, districts and their consultants cannot discern the acceptability of a site without interaction with DTSC. Senate Bill 32 was enacted in 2001 and required the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA) to publish a list of such thresholds; completion is expected later this year.

Additionally, schools applying for approval to expand an existing site are subject to DTSC approval. This can create a situation where an existing, overcrowded site cannot expand to handle growth due to potential contaminants while the school continues to serve students on the site. While the state will not provide funding to replace the site, it also may not approve the expansion of the facilities, leaving the district in an uncomfortable position of either overcrowded classrooms or bussing students to another school. [13]

After attaining DTSC approval, the district returns to CDE-SFPD and submits documents related to local government interaction, educational adequacy, environmental compliance, geographic location, site size justifications and other issues. If these documents meet CDESFPD’s approval, then a final site approval letter is sent to the district.

At this point, the district architect can begin design work, which can take as long as a year depending on the size and complexity of the structure. Once the construction drawings are completed and approved by the district, the architect submits the plans and specifications to CDE-SFPD and DGS-DSA for approval.

CDE-SFPD reviews plans for educational adequacy and environmental compliance and upon approval, will issue a Final Plan Approval letter to the district. The review focuses mainly on the educational specifications, commonly referred to as “Ed. Specs.” These are building and site specifications that address educational issues and are approved by the district board. CDESFPD checks the plans to ensure that they match the local board-approved Ed. Specs.

The building plans are submitted to DGS-DSA for approval. DGS-DSA’s engineers and architects check the building plans to ensure that they comply with the state’s Building Code. The district architect normally submits three sets of paper plans and specifications that are checked by DGS-DSA and then sent back to the district architect for revisions. After the revisions are made, the plans are then approved or disapproved.

Since the passage of SB 50, DGS-DSA has retained private firms on contract to be made available to school districts that opt for the use of these services. DGS-DSA manages 183 contracts with firms ranging between $250,000–300,000 each, to be able to handle a large potential project load. Currently the division sends 40 percent of its work to these consultants.[14]

DGS-DSA state staff and contractor’s review sometimes fail to check critical parts of the building against the building code. None of the facility plans is checked for electrical, mechanical or plumbing compliance, and only a small percentage is checked for energy compliance. These oversights have caused brand-new school facilities to be constructed without meeting code. They are costly to operate and maintain.[15] After wages and salaries, utility costs are one of the greatest expenses for districts—often meeting or exceeding what districts spend on books and other school supplies.[16]

After receiving DGS-DSA and CDE-SFPD approval, the district applies to DGS-OPSC for eligibility determination and funding approval. This fiscal process takes a minimum of 90 days, depending on the quality of the application and district responsiveness. Upon DGS-OPSC approval the application is forwarded to the state’s school facility funding authority, the State Allocation Board (SAB). SAB holds monthly meetings where it reviews projects for funding from statewide bonds. The approval involves no additional review beyond that already done by DGS-OPSC. Due to the frequency of the monthly meetings, SAB approves most applications within 30 days of the DGS-OPSC approval.

Once SAB grants approval, the district submits a Fund Release Authorization to DGS-OPSC which releases funds to districts within three weeks of submittal reception. The district must then submit a yearly expenditure report and after 18 months, a progress report.

Before the beginning of construction, the district must hire a DGS-DSA-approved Inspector-of- Record to be on-site for the entire construction process to ensure that the project is built to meet the state’s building code and DGS-DSA-approved plans and specifications. DGS-DSA appoints a field engineer to visit the site periodically to review construction work. Certain construction materials have to be inspected during construction by a laboratory approved by DGS-DSA.

At the end of construction, DGS-DSA will award a Final Certification of Construction. Within two years of project completion, DGS-OPSC will perform a financial audit of the project expenditures.

Three agencies (CDE-SFPD, DGS-DSA, and DGS-OPSC) perform site checks to review conditions of existing, potential and in-construction facilities. None of these site checks is coordinated, and none of the collected information is consolidated.

At least four agencies review a number of sets of paper site plans and building plans for educational, environmental, building code and financial adequacy. CDE-SFPD, DGS-DSA, and DGS-OPSC have initiated an online tracking process for projects. The cross-departmental nature of this tool, along with a pilot online plan check process at DGS-DSA, show good potential for future uses of technology to expedite the plan check by allowing for concurrent, paperless, real time reviews.

DGS-OPSC staff reviews project applications for local school district projects and approves or rejects them. The approved ones are sent to SAB. [17]

In February 2000, the Little Hoover Commission called for the school facility approval process to be consolidated. [18] Its report identified delays and duplications in the approval process and the potential for significant reduction in process time. The report notes that the complexity of the review and approval process has led to an increase in the use of educational facility consultants to help districts work through the maze of forms and regulations. The money used by schools for these consultants results in a decrease of funds for classroom construction. To date, the Commission’s recommendations have not been implemented.

In January 2004, the Pacific Research Institute identified the same issues noted by the Little Hoover Commission—a lengthy process involving multiple agencies and expensive delays. The Institute’s report asserted that school construction costs one-third to one-half more than private sector construction, and that the main reason for this additional cost is the state’s cumbersome review and approval process. [19]

Local entities, such as cities and counties, private firms and some school districts have the technical ability, but not the authority, to check building plans for code compliance, and could provide another option for school districts concerned about potential delays. School districts, however, express concern about being subject to the regulatory oversight of local governments, and potential project delays as a result of political friction between districts and local governments. [20] Architects express concern that such an arrangement would require them to work with a variety of local plan check agencies and their particular requirements, rather than just DGS-DSA statewide policies and practices. As every local jurisdiction can make additions to the building code and require additional design measures, a district-hired architect would need to learn the eccentricities of each local planning department within whose jurisdiction they would work. This could lead to additional time and expense.[21]

In some cases, however, review by nonstate entities could provide a more expedient option for site, building and fiscal approval, depending on the capabilities of the entities and the districts’ relationships with them. The American Institute of Architects submitted a report to the California Performance Review in April 2004 that called for transforming DGS-DSA from an entity that primarily checks construction plans to an entity responsible for the management, oversight, training and certification of the school construction process.[22] By certifying local governments, private entities and school districts to perform building plan check responsibilities, DGS-DSA could delegate this authority and provide another option for districts seeking reviews. Certification should also be considered for site, environmental hazard and financial review.

Recommendations
The Governor should work with the Legislature to consolidate all parts of the school site, facility and financial review and allocation process into the State and Consumer Services Agency (SCSA), or its successor, and the process should be reduced to funding eligibility and allocation, site and building code compliance and a financial audit.

The staff and responsibilities of the Department of Toxic Substances Control school site approval section and the California Department of Education’s School Facilities Planning Division (CDE-SFPD) should be transferred to the SCSA, or its successor. Exhibit 5 illustrates the proposed process.

Exhibit 5
New School Facility Approval Process



The SCSA, or its successor, should require school districts to undergo a single check for funding eligibility and allocation, site approval and plan check. This would be accomplished with a single documentation submittal, and would take place at the former Department of General Services’ Division of State Architects (DGS-DSA) regional offices. The preliminary site approval, educational specifications and fiscal review process should be eliminated as mandatory but offered as a service for a fee. After SCSA, or its successor’s, approval, the school district project should be forwarded to the State Allocation Board (SAB) or its successor entity for allocation. The Inspectorof- Record and laboratory approval of products should continue to be required, and upon project completion, the district should be required to submit an audit of the use of state funds to SCSA or its successor.

Similar to fees now required by DGS-DSA and the California Department of Education for their services, SCSA, or its successor, should charge a fee for the services of eligibility, allocation, site, plan and audit approval, which reflects the costs of administration of the program.

The State and Consumer Services Agency, or its successor, should develop and implement a certification process for private and public entities that school districts could use, optionally, for site, environmental hazards review, plan check and financial audits. This process should be operating by January 1, 2006.

Many public and private entities could provide facility approval services for districts, but the state should ensure that the new review authorities are capable. A certification process would allow for a group of firms, local governments and school districts to be approved for determining site, building code, environmental hazards, and fiscal compliance. If a certified entity were used, the state’s review would need only be cursory and should take no longer than one month. This process would allow districts the freedom to use review entities at their discretion and reduce time in state agency review.

The State and Consumer Services Agency, or its successor, should publish environmental hazards standards for school sites and implement a streamlined site review process for existing sites by July 1, 2006.

A publication of maximum allowable environmental toxicity levels on school sites will allow school districts and their consultants a clearer picture of site adequacy. This clarity will reduce uncertainties, save development costs and speed approval of potential school sites. This process has begun at the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA); the SCSA, or its successor, should work with Cal-EPA to ensure that the information will be clearly communicated to districts and their representatives through publications, directed trainings and other outreach efforts. A streamlined process for existing sites would help to ensure that crowded school sites would be able to expand while providing a safe learning environment for staff and students.

The State and Consumer Services Agency, or its successor, should implement an online project approval program to begin operating by July 1, 2006.

An online approval program will allow for the process of plan review and corrections to be accelerated. DGS-DSA has already begun this process with a pilot project in their Oakland office.

The State and Consumer Services Agency, or its successor, should provide leadership on school facility issues, develop a thorough facility-training program and provide technical assistance and advice for district staff and other facility stakeholders.

The current agencies all provide a number of programs and resources for school districts on building and process issues. The SCSA, or its successor, should develop a training and research program in collaboration with other groups such as Coalition for Adequate School Housing, the California Association of School Business Officials and the Collaborative for High Performance Schools, which would provide guidance on all issues of planning, design construction, operations and financing school facilities. SCSA, or its successor, should become the single voice of the administration on school facility issues.

The consolidation of agencies into a one-stop shop for school facility approval—along with the reduction of steps in the review and approval processes—will result in substantial annual savings and improved services. Because these actions will depend on legislation and individual agency actions, however, the savings resulting from this recommendation cannot be estimated.

The services provided by the State and Consumer Services Agency or its successor entity will be paid for by fees from school districts. Therefore, no additional costs will be incurred by the state. With a one-stop shop for school facility approval, the fees charged to school districts for these services are expected to be substantially lower.

The training program development and implementation will be accomplished by redirecting existing training staff from the various agencies and through partnerships with nonstate groups. Florida, for example, runs a comprehensive, statewide training program with four staff members. This process improvement can be funded within existing resources.

The infrastructure for an online plan approval system is already in place at DGS-DSA. DGS-DSA predicts that for less than $1 million the system could be expanded to encompass the other agencies’ document management responsibilities. The management of the tool would be accomplished with existing staff. [23] The costs for the expansion of the system will be paid from the redirection of savings associated with consolidation and process improvements made by this proposal.

The development of an environmental hazards threshold list has begun at Cal-EPA and any minor costs can be paid from its existing budget.

---

Back to Top