BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 85
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 30, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 85 (Mendoza) - As Introduced: January 6, 2011
�Note: This bill has been double referred to the Assembly Higher
Education Committee and will be heard as it relates to issues
under its jurisdiction.]
SUBJECT : School facilities: security locks
SUMMARY : Requires, on and after July 1, 2012, all kindergarten
through grade 12 (K-12) modernization projects and all new
construction or alteration of community college facilities
submitted to the Division of State Architects (DSA) to include
locks that allow doors to classrooms and any room with occupancy
of five or more persons to be locked from the inside.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Specifies that the locks shall conform to the specifications
and requirements set forth by the California Building
Standards Code (Title 24 under the California Code of
Regulations).
2)Specifies that doors that are locked from the outside at all
times and student restrooms are exempt from the requirements
of this bill.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires, under the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of
1998, the State Allocation Board (SAB) to allocate to
applicant school districts, prescribed per-unhoused-pupil
state funding for construction and modernization of school
facilities, including hardship funding, and supplemental
funding for site development and acquisition.
2)Prohibits the SAB from apportioning funds to any school
district unless the applicant school district has certified to
the SAB that it has obtained the written approval of the
California Department of Education (CDE) that the site
selection, and the building plans and specifications, comply
with the standards adopted by the CDE.
AB 85
Page 2
3)Prohibits the SAB from apportioning funds to any school
district that has not received approval from the DSA that the
project meets Field Act requirements.
4)Requires the DSA, under the police power of the state, to
supervise the design and construction of any school building
or the reconstruction or alteration of or addition to any
school building to ensure that plans and specifications comply
with existing law and Title 24 regulations.
5)Requires, on and after July 1, 2011, all new construction
projects submitted to the DSA to include locks that allow
doors to classrooms and any room with an occupancy of five or
more persons to be locked form the inside.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : The author states that violent or potentially violent
incidents on school campuses and in the immediate neighborhoods
surrounding school campuses are increasing at an alarming rate.
Since 1999, when two high school students killed 12 students and
a teacher and wounded 23 others before committing suicide at
Columbine High School in Colorado, school safety has been a
major concern in schools across the country. In such
situations, schools will employ lock downs to keep students in
and perpetrators out. However, if teachers and other school
staff do not have the capability to lock the outside from the
inside, there could be a delay in time which could increase
exposure to harmful situations.
AB 211 (Mendoza), Chapter 430, Statutes of 2010, requires, as a
condition for state education bond funds, all new construction
projects submitted to the DSA on and after July 1, 2011 to
include locks that allow a door to be locked from the inside of
a classroom or any room that accommodates five or more people.
This bill extends the requirement to K-12 modernization projects
and all community college projects submitted to the DSA.
Similar to the provisions in AB 211, this bill requires the
locks to comply with Title 24 regulations and exempts doors that
are locked from the outside at all times and student restrooms.
AB 211 initially included modernization projects but was removed
in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
All proposed public school construction and modernization
projects must receive approval from the DSA, which reviews
AB 85
Page 3
architectural plans for compliance with the Field Act (seismic
safety); fire, life and safety requirements; and access
requirements under the Americans with Disability Act. DSA
grants approvals based on the requirements specified by Title 24
regulations, also known as the California Building Standards
Code.
Section 1008.1.8.4 of Title 24 regulations prohibits manually
operated flush bolts or surface bolts on all egress doors except
doors in residential dwellings and doors for storage or
equipment rooms. In addition, section 1207.3 of the California
Fire Code specifies that "exit doors shall be openable from the
inside without the use of a key or any special knowledge or
effort. Exit doors shall not be locked, chained, bolted,
barred, latched or otherwise rendered unusable. All locking
devices shall be of an approved type." These provisions ensure
that occupants are easily able to exit a building or classroom
in a panic situation, such as a fire or earthquake.
There is no data available to indicate the extent existing
schools already have inside locks. School architects note that
classroom security locks are already commonly included in school
design plans.
Eligibility for education bond funds for
modernization/rehabilitation projects under the School Facility
Program (SFP) is based on the age of a building. A permanent
building is eligible for modernization funds if it is more than
25 years old and a portable classroom is eligible if it is more
than 20 years old. Section 17074.25 of the Education Code
specifies that modernization funds can be used for improvements
to extend the useful life of, or to enhance the physical
environment, of a school. Eligible expenditures include
purchase and installation of air-conditioning equipment, and
insulation materials and related costs, furniture and equipment,
including telecommunication equipment to increase school
security, fire safety improvements, playground safety
improvements, the identification, assessment, or abatement of
hazardous asbestos, seismic safety improvements, and the
upgrading of electrical systems or the wiring or cabling of
classrooms in order to accommodate educational technology.
Modernization grants require a 40% local match. Since the
inception of the SFP in 1998, New Construction grants have
received increases (on top of the annual construction cost
index), while the modernization grants have only received the
AB 85
Page 4
annual construction cost index. Local educational agencies have
expressed concerns that the modernization grant levels are
inadequate.
The requirement to install and use a specified type of lock can
be easily implemented in a new construction project as locks are
typically already included in a design plan. AB 211 simply
directs the type of lock to be used. It is more complicated for
modernization projects. As noted above, a modernization project
may simply be upgrading a roof, removing asbestos, or upgrading
playground equipment. Should local educational agencies be
required to change the locks on all doors at a schoolsite when
the project may not take place in a classroom or any room in a
building? Staff recommends and the author is accepting an
amendment to apply the requirement when rehabilitation work is
conducted in a classroom or a room with an occupancy of five or
more persons.
Arguments in Support . The California Teachers Association
states, "The ability to lock a classroom from the inside
increases the safety of students and school personnel by
eliminating the need to leave the safety of a classroom to lock
the door, shortens the amount of time necessary to secure the
classroom, and reduces attracting the attention of an assailant
to where students and school personnel are located."
Arguments in Opposition . The California School Boards
Association states, "AB 85 would require inclusion of the
classroom door locks even when the school district has other,
more pressing needs for modernization. For example, a school
district in dire need of a new heating and air conditioning
system, or a new roof, would also be required to retrofit door
locks. This would add time to the project schedule, increase
costs, and make it harder for the district to make its facility
educationally adequate."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Teachers Association
Faculty Association of California Community Colleges
United Teachers Los Angeles
Opposition
AB 85
Page 5
Community College Facility Coalition
California School Boards Association
Analysis Prepared by : Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087