BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1783
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 20, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
1783 (Dodd) - As Amended April 13, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Education |Vote:|7 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill requires certain local educational agencies (LEAs) to
develop a plan to assess items in each school building to
determine whether the contents meet earthquake safety
AB 1783
Page 2
guidelines. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires, by July 1, 2018, each school district, county office
of education (COE), and charter school located in areas with
"higher seismicity", to develop a plan for the inspection of
school building areas accessible to children. The purpose of
the plan is to determine whether the contents of the area
comply with the guidelines set forth the Office of Emergency
Services (OES) "Guide and Checklist for Nonstructural
Earthquake Hazards in California School" (Guide).
2)Defines "higher seismicity" as a school district, COE or
charter school located in an area with the result of .30g or
greater on the California Geological Survey's Ground Motion
Interpolator on the Department of Conservation website.
3)Requires the California Geological Survey to post instructions
or links on their website related to determining whether an
LEA is in a high seismicity area.
4)Requires the plan to be developed in consultation with a
California licensed civil or structural engineer or a
California licensed architect, a representative of the local
fire service agency, a school administrator or school business
official, a classroom teacher, and a representative of
classified school employees.
5)Requires the plan to designate a person to assess and develop
corrective action plans, identify all school buildings that
are to be assessed and the order of assessment, and provide a
cost estimate for the assessment.
6)Requires the plan to be submitted to the governing board of
AB 1783
Page 3
the school district, the COE, or the governing body of the
charter school at a public meeting.
7)Requires each school district, COE, and charter school to
complete the assessment by January 1, 2020. Requires the
person conducting the inspection to, at minimum, complete the
checklist published in the Guide.
8)Requires the governing bodies to review the report in a public
meeting and post the report on their Internet Web site.
9)Requires compliant and noncompliant items to be reported to
the LEA within 60 days of completing the assessment. Sets
forth priorities for remedying noncompliant issues. Requires
the district superintendent, COE superintendent or chief
administrator of the charter school to annually certify
corrective actions taken.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Unknown Proposition 98/GF state mandated costs, likely in the
tens of millions of dollars, for school districts to develop
and implement plans for the inspection of school building
areas accessible to children.
LEAs that meet the high seismicity requirements of the bill
are unknown; however, looking at regions with high seismic
risk, it is likely the requirements of the bill will affect
several hundred school districts, COEs and charter schools.
Costs to implement a plan will vary depending on the size of
AB 1783
Page 4
the district and the resources needed to review school sites.
Costs per district could range from several hundred dollars to
over $200,000. For illustration, Los Angeles Unified School
District has approximately 30,000 classrooms. Assuming a 15
minute inspection per classroom at an hourly rate of $15, it
would take a total of 7,500 hours to inspect all classrooms at
a cost of $112,500. Districts are also required to meet with
stakeholders to develop both an assessment and corrective
action plan. Additional resources will be needed to make
corrective actions if deemed necessary.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the author, this bill is in response to
the South Napa Earthquake that struck early in the morning on
August 24, 2014. Structural damage to schools was minimal.
However, nonstructural damage was significant and could have
been life-threatening had the earthquake occurred during
school hours. According to the author, replacing and
repairing contents damaged by the earthquake was estimated at
$9 million for schools in the Napa Unified School District.
2)Background. The Field Act, named after the author of the bill
establishing the Act, Assemblymember C. Don Field, was enacted
in 1933 after an earthquake in Long Beach. The Field Act
addresses the structure of buildings. There are no
requirements regarding the contents inside the buildings,
although, there are guidelines established in regulations
under the Division of Industrial Safety or requirements for
insurance purposes.
Following the 1994 Northridge earthquake, SB 1122 (Alarcon),
AB 1783
Page 5
Chapter 294, Statutes of 1999, was enacted to require the OES
to develop an educational pamphlet. The California Emergency
Management Agency developed the "Guide and Checklist for
Nonstructural Earthquake Hazards in California School." The
Guide covers three components within a building - Ceilings and
Overhead, Walls and Wall Mounted, and Furniture and Equipment.
It is unclear how many school districts have used the
recommendations in the Guide to secure nonstructural contents
within a school building.
Analysis Prepared by:Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916)
319-2081