BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
AB 1783 (Dodd) - School facilities: nonstructural earthquake
hazards: assessment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: August 1, 2016 |Policy Vote: ED. 9 - 0 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: Yes |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: August 1, 2016 |Consultant: Jillian Kissee |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: This bill requires local educational agencies (LEAs)
to complete an inspection of the contents in each of its school
buildings accessible by students and located in an area of
higher seismicity, as defined. The purpose of the inspection is
to assess whether the contents comply with specified guidelines
and to develop corrective actions.
Fiscal
Impact:
Mandate: Unknown significant reimbursable mandate costs to
the state. Costs are likely to be in the low millions.
Assuming about 30 counties are subject to the requirements of
this bill, representing about 4.5 million students, the
inspection requirement for an estimated 150,000 classrooms
could cost almost $2 million. If an estimated 600 school
AB 1783 (Dodd) Page 1 of
?
districts within the 30 counties possibly located in higher
seismicity areas spent $2,000 on retrofitting buildings,
statewide costs would be about $1.2 million. Charter schools
would incur similar costs but are not eligible for
reimbursement on mandate claims. Actual costs would depend
upon a number of unknown factors. See staff comments.
(Proposition 98)
Minor costs to the Department of Conservation to provide
guidance on how to determine whether an LEA has school
buildings located in an area of higher seismicity.
Potential significant cost avoidance to the extent the
preventative measures required by this bill mitigate damage
(and more importantly injuries) in the event of an earthquake.
Background: On August 24, 2014 a 6.0 magnitude earthquake struck South
Napa and while there was very minimal structural damage, Napa
Unified School District sustained significant nonstructural
damage. According to the author's office, file cabinets had
collapsed on desks, for example, and damage had mostly affected
such things as interior partitions, ceilings, mechanical,
electrical, and plumbing equipment.
When LEAs apply for state bond funds for new construction and/or
modernization projects through the State School Facility
Program, the LEA must receive approval from the California
Department of Education (CDE) to ensure the school site
specifications are safe and meet the school's education plan.
In addition, the LEA must receive approval from the Division of
State Architect (DSA) to ensure that the architectural design
plans meet fire, life, and safety requirements pursuant to the
Field Act. The Field Act was enacted in 1933 after an
earthquake in Long Beach, and authorized the DSA to develop a
statewide building code to make all buildings, especially school
buildings, safe from earthquakes. Because of this, public
schools are commonly considered to be the safest public
buildings in the state.
While the Field Act addresses the structural integrity of
buildings, there are no requirements that apply to their
contents. Following the 1994 Northridge earthquake, SB 1122
(Alarcon, Chapter 294, Statutes of 1999) was enacted to require
the Office of Emergency Services to develop an educational
AB 1783 (Dodd) Page 2 of
?
pamphlet. As a result, the California Emergency Management
Agency, in consultation with the DSA, the Seismic Safety
Commission and the CDE, developed the "Guide and Checklist for
Nonstructural Earthquake Hazards in California School." This
guide covers several components within a building, including the
ceilings, walls, and furniture, and specifies various guidelines
and recommendations for ensuring earthquake safety related to
these components.
Proposed Law:
This bill requires that by January 1, 2020, each LEA complete
an inspection of the contents in each of its school buildings
accessible by students and located in an area of higher
seismicity, as defined. The purpose of the inspection is to
assess whether the contents in each area comply with the
guidelines set forth in the "Guide and Checklist for
Nonstructural Earthquake Hazards in California Schools" and to
develop corrective actions.
The following requirements apply to LEAs with buildings in areas
of higher seismicity:
Within 60 days of completing the inspection, report to the
governing board of the LEA a checklist of compliant and
noncompliant contents. The report must include prioritization
of the most serious threats to safety and include a set of
recommended corrective actions for those high-priority
contents. This bill provides that if an LEA completes an
inspection before January 1, 2017, the LEA may report the
inspection and any corresponding corrective actions it takes
to its governing board to comply with this requirement.
The governing board of an LEA must review the report in a
public meeting and post it on its website.
The superintendent or chief administrator, as applicable, must
annually certify to the governing board of the LEA which
corrective actions have been completed and post the
certifications online.
AB 1783 (Dodd) Page 3 of
?
This bill requires the Department of Conservation to post
instructions or a hyperlink on its website on how to determine
whether an LEA building is located in an area of higher
seismicity.
This bill specifies that "contents" include, but are not limited
to, file cabinets, bookcases, desktop and countertop equipment,
equipment on carts, display cases, art objects, potted plants,
aquariums, equipment on wheels or rollers, such as pianos and
chalkboards, office equipment, refrigerators, vending machines,
shop and gym equipment, gas cylinders, gas piping, and storage
racks.
Staff
Comments: The costs of this bill will depend on a number of
factors and therefore a precise estimate is unknown. The cost
of this bill largely depends on the number of LEAs subject to
the requirements of this bill, and the staff time to conduct
inspections, develop corrective actions, report to the governing
board of the LEA, and the oversight, review, and certification
conducted by the governing board to monitor completion of
corrective actions. These activities would likely be determined
to be a reimbursable state mandate by the Commission on State
Mandates, however would only be applicable to the LEAs located
in areas with "higher seismicity".
Higher seismicity in this bill is defined as a probabilistic
ground acceleration of 0.3g as estimated through the California
Geological Survey's Ground Motion Interpolator found on the
Department of Conservation website. This generally means how
fast the ground will move during an earthquake. A list of LEAs
in areas with higher seismicity is unavailable at this time.
However, based on the Ground Motion Interpolator, these areas
are likely to be coastal and Inland Empire areas of the state.
Assuming about 30 counties are subject to the requirements of
AB 1783 (Dodd) Page 4 of
?
this bill, the inspection requirement could cost almost $2
million. Additional requirements to develop corrective actions,
report to the governing board, and for board review and
certification of corrective actions could drive additional costs
in the hundreds of thousands. If an LEA has already completed
an inspection prior to the implementation of this bill, the LEA
may report these results to the governing board in lieu of
conducting an additional inspection, which will mitigate
statewide costs. According to the Los Angeles Unified School
District, this provision would apply to the district.
To the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines that
the cost of implementing the corrective actions are reimbursable
under state mandate law, this could drive additional significant
costs to the state. However, these costs would vary widely by
LEA depending upon the extent to which they are out of
compliance, the remedies chosen to become compliant, and the
size of the LEA. If an estimated 600 school districts within
the 30 counties possibly located in higher seismicity areas
spent $2,000 on retrofitting buildings, statewide costs would be
$1.2 million. Possible corrective actions pursuant to the
guidelines referenced in this bill include securing the cabinets
to walls to prevent overturning, and restraining large or heavy
office equipment to prevent sliding or blocking an exit way.
To the extent that conducting the required inspections and
implementing any necessary corrective actions mitigates future
damages, or more importantly, prevents injuries in the event of
an earthquake, greater future costs may be avoided. According
to the author's office, replacing and repairing contents damaged
by the earthquake was estimated at $9 million for schools in
Napa Unified School District.
Staff notes that with the funding enacted in the 2016-17 Budget
Act to pay down owed mandate claims the estimated outstanding
debt is estimated to be $1.6 billion by the end of the current
budget year.
-- END --
AB 1783 (Dodd) Page 5 of
?