STUDY OF SCHOOL DEFICIENCY REPAIR GRANT AND FACILITIES MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS IN WASHINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICTS. February 1, 2007

Transcription

1 STUDY OF SCHOOL DEFICIENCY REPAIR GRANT AND FACILITIES MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS IN WASHINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICTS February 1, 2007 Daniel Moberly Project Consultant Washington Association of Maintenance and Operations Administrators (WAMOA) study funded through OSPI

2 Study of School Deficiency Repair Grant And Facilities Maintenance Operations In Washington School Districts Table of Contents. 2 Executive Summary 3 Study: School Deficiency Repair Grant School Facilities Maintenance Operations 9 Comparisons Conclusions Appendix A.. 15 Appendix B.. 22 Appendix C.. 28 Appendix D.. 32 Appendix E.. 36 Appendix F.. 42 Appendix G.. 43 Page 2 of 44

3 Executive Summary Study of School Deficiency Repair Grant And Facilities Maintenance Operations in Washington School Districts Rationale for this project This study evolved out of discussions between the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) and the Washington Association of Maintenance and Operations Administrators (WAMOA) in 2004 about the difficulty of maintaining safe and healthy environments in all our schools given current fiscal realities. One of the outcomes of those discussions was the Small School Repair Grant program that was enacted ( ) to help address the needs of school districts that have critical health and safety needs with few resources to meet those needs. This report has three main objectives: 1. Support the continuation of the concept of the Small School Repair Grant program through the funding of the proposed School Deficiency Repair Grant program included in both the Governor s and OSPI budget requests; 2. Introduce legislators to the topic of facilities maintenance operations funding in school districts across the state; and 3. Create a basic understanding and enhanced levels of knowledge about district funding challenges for maintaining safe and healthy learning environments in which teaching and learning for all students and staff can take place. While not part of this report, longer term objectives are to provide ongoing support of comprehensive asset management and funding for all school facilities as part of improved overall K-12 education; offer WAMOA s assistance in the identification of appropriate state roles in all the solutions considered; and support the funding of a more comprehensive study through Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC). Small School Repair Grant (School Deficiency Repair Grant in proposed budget) The first year of the Small School Repair Grant program ( ) was funded at $3,000,000 and was extremely successful in helping fund critical facility health and safety needs for the 26 districts that received the awards as well as 3 additional districts (Snohomish, Vashon Island and White Pass) that were listed in the budget language. Although 26 grants were awarded, 126 school districts completed grant applications. In other words, 100 districts did not receive any grant funds to assist with their unmet facilities needs. Another 7 districts submitted incomplete applications and were not considered. Summaries of the above information are found in tables 1 and 2 of the main report. During the first year of the grant there were over $9 million of unmet facility school deficiencies that were not addressed by districts that applied for the grants. It is vital that this program be continued in the foreseeable future to address health and safety issues in our schools and improve teaching and learning for all students in Washington school districts. For more detailed information on the grant details and process see Appendix A. School Facility Maintenance Funding: In the state of Washington there is no separate funding mechanism for the maintenance and operations of schools districts facilities. The funds spent on these activities are determined in Page 3 of 44

4 each individual district through their own budget process based on the perceived needs and priorities of those districts. The main sources of funds are state apportionment and local levy funds. Consequently, the portion of a districts budget that is spent to clean and maintain their facilities in a safe and healthy manner can vary greatly from district to district. Unfortunately, all too often when the facility needs are in competition with educational priorities in the budget process, the facilities suffer. It can be difficult for people to understand that the environment in which teaching and learning takes place can be a major factor in the quality of the learning that takes place, including measurable increases in test scores. In the process of putting this report together, we selected 23 school districts from across the state to use as a representative sample to analyze in terms of their facility maintenance operations. We considered several factors in determining the make-up of the sample districts. We worked to get a good mix of East / West side; small (0-2,000 FTE), medium (2,001-10,000 FTE), large (10,001+ FTE); and urban, suburban, and rural districts (Appendix F) The Washington school district data that is used in this report is from the most recent OSPI reports available. The revenue and expenditure data is from final F196 reports (combined expense and revenue) that districts file. The square footage information is based on 2006 information. Unfortunately square footage is not a static number and the actual square footages may vary in some districts, but not enough to make a statistically significant difference to our report. Student enrollment (student FTE) is from October enrollment reports. Revenue Comparisons While revenue is not a main topic of this report it does deserve a brief discussion. As was mentioned earlier, school districts main sources of revenue are from state apportionment and local levy funds. Unfortunately, from to the proportionate share of revenue that our sample districts received from state apportionment has been reduced in all but one of the districts. The range of reduction is from 0.71% to 10.1%. The average reduction is 3.66%. During this same period the state wide average reduction has been 3.34% (Appendix E-1). When there is a reduction in percent of revenue from a major source of funding, like apportionment, and expenses continue to rise, a district has to either find additional sources of revenues or reduce the rise of expenditures, or both. All too often those decisions result in a reduction in the maintenance and operations activities of a district. Generally the thinking that goes into that decision is, Let s make the reduction(s) in areas that have the least direct impact on the teaching and learning that takes place in the classroom. More and more research is showing that that is a false economy and facilities should compete on the same priority level with instructional needs. The physical environment plays a major role in the health and safety of building occupants and has a measurable impact on the teaching and learning that occurs. Expenditure Comparisons There are many different ways you can look at data surrounding the maintenance (61 and 64) and operations (63) activities of school districts. For the purposes of this report we have chosen the comparisons shown in Exhibit 1 at the end of the executive summary. They are representative of the types of data that are available through OSPI to examine the issue of facilities maintenance funding in Washington School Districts. The data are discussed in greater depth in the body of the main report and the appendices that follow it. Page 4 of 44

5 Conclusions: Facilities maintenance operations issues: After reviewing Exhibit 1, you will note that there is a great deal of consistency between the ways the sample districts allocate resources for the maintenance and operation of their facilities and the state averages for all districts. Even more striking however, is the fact that though the averages are similar, the ranges of differences from district-to-district are large. This harkens back to the fact that each individual district, based on their own perceived needs and priorities, establishes their budgets for their facility needs in competition with the educational priorities of the district. Unfortunately, in a time of tight resources, these differences lead to an inequality of safe and healthy facilities from district-to-district. It is not the purpose of this report to provide a solution to these inequalities, but rather to introduce you to the issues and the challenges that are involved. WAMOA is offering its assistance to help identify appropriate state roles in all the solutions that may be considered. School Deficiency Repair Grant: It is important that the School Deficiency Repair Grant proposed in both the Governor s and OSPI budget requests be enacted during this legislative session. Using last years experience with the Small Schools Repair Grant as an example, there are least $9 million of unmet critical school facilities needs in school districts that applied for the grants. It is vital that this program be continued in the foreseeable future to address health and safety issues in our schools and improve teaching and learning for all students in Washington school districts. Page 5 of 44

6 Exhibit 1 Sample Districts' Range Sample Districts' Ave State Average Maintenance and Operations compared to total district and district wide support (program 97) Maintenance & operations as percent of total District Expenditures 5.76% % 6.33% 6.15% Maintenance & operations as percent of total District Expenditures-Includes Utilities 7.24% % 8.75% 8.72% Maintenance & operations as percent of District Wide Support (Prog. 97) 31.80% % 45.16% 43.42% Maintenance & operations as percent of District Wide Support (Prog. 97)-Includes Utilities 45.86% % 62.46% 61.56% - Square Footage Comparisons Square feet per FTE Student Square Feet Maintained per FTE Maintenance employee 53, , ,385 83,450 Square Feet Maintained per FTE Operations employee 17,197-76,948 29,431 28,172 Square Feet Maintained per combined FTE maintenance & operations employee 15,789 76,948 23,313 21,062 Expenditures per square foot Expense per sq.ft. of total facilities maintained $ $ $ $ Expense per sq.ft. maintenance $ $ 2.17 $ 1.21 $ 1.35 Expense per sq.ft. operations $ $ 2.95 $ 2.00 $ 2.05 Expense per sq.ft. maintenance & operations $ 0.97 $ 1.56 $ 3.20 $ 3.40 Percent of expenditures per square foot % of total district expenditures-maintenance 0.27% % 2.17% 2.34% % of total district expenditures-operations 2.78% % 3.59% 3.56% % of total district expenditures - maint & operations 3.26% % 5.77% 5.91% FTE student enrollments comparisons FTE students per FTE maintenance employee 322-1, FTE students per FTE operations employee FTE students per FTE maint & operations combined employee % change in expenditures per FTE student - Five year comparison Per FTE student expenditure-maintenance % % 10.05% 4.95% Per FTE student expenditure-operations % % 12.01% 13.27% Per FTE student expenditure-maint & operations % % 11.27% 9.67% Per FTE student expenditure-total dist expenditures 3.68% % 13.73% 13.39% Page 6 of 44

7 Study of School Deficiency Repair Grant And Facilities Maintenance Operations in Washington School Districts Rationale for the Maintenance and Operations Project This study evolved out of discussions between the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) and the Washington Association of Maintenance and Operations Administrators (WAMOA) in 2004 about the difficulty of maintaining safe and healthy environments in all our schools given current fiscal realities. One of the outcomes of those discussions was the Small School Repair Grant program that was enacted ( ) to help address the needs of school districts that have critical health and safety needs with few resources to meet those needs. This report has three main objectives: 1. Support the continuation of the concept of the Small School Repair Grant program through the funding of the proposed School Deficiency Repair Grant program included in both the Governor s and OSPI budget requests; 2. Introduce legislators to the topic of facilities maintenance operations funding in school districts across the state; and 3. Create a basic understanding and enhanced levels of knowledge about district funding challenges for maintaining safe and healthy learning environments in which teaching and learning for all students and staff can take place. While not part of this report, longer term objectives are to provide ongoing support of comprehensive asset management and funding for all school facilities as part of improved overall K-12 education; offer WAMOA s assistance in the identification of appropriate state roles in all the solutions considered; and support the funding of a more comprehensive study through Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC). Small School Repair Grant (School Deficiency Repair Grant in proposed budget) Based on the experience of the first year (2006) of the grant program there is a strong need for it to continue. The first year of the Small School Repair Grant program ( ) was funded at $3,000,000 and was extremely successful in helping fund critical facility health and safety needs for the 26 districts that received the awards as well as 3 additional districts (Snohomish, Vashon Island and White Pass) that were listed in the budget language. Total grants in the amount of $2,253,609 were funded plus $630,000 for the 3 named districts. The districts that received the grants are very appreciative since they have been attempting to meet these facility challenges with few resources to address them. A summary of the grant is shown in Table 1. Page 7 of 44

8 Table 1 $3,000,000 Small School Repair Grant Three school districts listed in budget language: Snohomish 100,000 Vashon Island 261,000 White Pass 269,000 Sub-total 630,000 Competitive grants funded 2,253,609 OSPI administration 116,391 Total 3,000,000 A total of 126 completed grant applications were submitted. However, as mentioned above, only 26 grants were awarded, 100 districts that applied did not receive grants. An additional 7 applications were incomplete and not considered for award. Applications were received for projects totaling $11,491,893. If you discount the incomplete application the total was $11,205,697. In other words, we were not able to meet the facility needs requested by nearly 80% (79.4%) of the grant applicants and grant monies could only fund 20.1% of the total amount of the completed application requests. This data is summarized in Table 2. Table 2 Grant Request / Award Summary 2,253, Districts Awarded 1,613, Districts Not Funded - High Financial Hardship / Emergencies 5,362, Districts Not Funded - High Financial Hardship / Emergent Threats 979, Districts Not Funded - Medium Financial Hardship / Emergent Threats 996, Districts Not Funded - Low Financial Hardship / Emergent Threats 286,196 7 Districts Applications Incomplete $11,491,893 Total Grant Funds Requested ($9,238,284 unfunded) $11,205,697 Total amount of completed grants requested ($8,952,088 unfunded) Table 3 is a summary of the demographics of the districts that submitted complete applications broken down by those that were funded and those that were not funded. Of the 26 funded districts 19 were from the east side of the state and 7 were from the west side. All but one district has less than 2,000 FTE students. The unfunded districts are also weighted toward small districts (76 out of 100 with less than 2,000 FTE students). The east / west distribution is a bit more evenly divided (60 from the east side and 40 from the west side of the state). Page 8 of 44

9 Table 3 Grant Application Demographics Demographic Funded Districts Unfunded Districts East West 7 40 < 2,000 FTE > 2,000 FTE 1 24 For more detailed information on the grant details and process see Appendix A. It contains 3 documents: A letter summarizing the selection process and results; A district-by-district list of each applicant, their rating score, the type of repair to be addressed by the grant, and the amount of each request; and A report on the unfunded needs of the districts that did not receive a grant in In the first year of the grant there were over $9 million of unmet facility school deficiencies that were not addressed by districts that applied for the grants. It is vital that this program be continued in the foreseeable future to address health and safety issues in our schools and improve teaching and learning for all students in Washington school districts. School facility maintenance funding: In the state of Washington there is no separate funding mechanism for the maintenance and operations of schools districts facilities. The funds spent on these activities are determined in each individual district through their own budget process based on the perceived needs and priorities of those districts. The main sources of funds are state apportionment and local levy funds. Consequently, the portion of a districts budget that is spent to clean and maintain their facilities in a safe and healthy manner can vary greatly from district to district. Unfortunately, all too often when the facility needs are in competition with educational priorities in the budget process, the facilities suffer. It can be difficult for people to understand that the environment in which teaching and learning takes place can be a major factor in the quality of the learning that takes place, including measurable increases in test scores. In the process of putting this report together, we selected 23 school districts from across the state to use as a representative sample to analyze in terms of their facility maintenance operations. We considered several factors in determining the make-up of the sample districts. We worked to get a good mix of East / West side; small (0-2,000 FTE), medium (2,001-10,000 FTE), large (10,001+ FTE); and urban, suburban, and rural districts. Table 4 is a list of the districts selected. Page 9 of 44

10 Table 4 Sample Districts CCDDD District ESD Battleground Blaine Brewster College Place Kennewick Lake Chelan Liberty Marysville Morton North Franklin Oroville Orting Pasco Quincy Reardan-Edwall Richland Seattle Selah Snoqualmie Valley Spokane Stevenson-Carson Tumwater White Salmon 112 The Washington school district data that is used in this report is from the most recent OSPI reports available. The revenue and expenditure data is from final F196 reports (combined expense and revenue) that districts file. The square footage information is based on 2006 information. Unfortunately square footage is not a static number and the actual square footages may vary in some districts, but not enough to make a statistically significant difference to our report. Student enrollment (student FTE) is from October enrollment reports. When we discuss maintenance expenditures in this report we are referring to specific program and activity expenditures from an accounting perspective. The expenditures we are comparing were all recorded in program 97 district wide support. Within program 97 we examined several activities. Activity 61 is the supervision of maintenance. Activity 64 is maintenance where all the non-supervisory expenditures are classified. For this report we frequently combine the two activities (61 and 64) to get a total maintenance figure. Activity 62 is grounds maintenance. We used this in some comparisons, but when discussing square footage information it is excluded to give a more accurate picture. Activity 63 is operation of Page 10 of 44

11 buildings (mainly the cleaning of facilities). For most of our comparisons we did not include activity 65 Utilities. Revenue Comparisons While revenue is not a main topic of this report it does deserve a brief discussion. As was mentioned earlier, school districts main sources of revenue are from state apportionment and local levy funds. Unfortunately, from to the proportionate share of revenue that our sample districts received from state apportionment has been reduced in all but one of the districts. The range of reduction is from 0.71% to 10.1%. The average reduction is 3.66%. During this same period the state wide average reduction has been 3.34%. When there is a reduction in percent of revenue from a major source of funding, like apportionment, and expenses continue to rise, a district has to either find additional sources of revenues or reduce the rise of expenditures, or both. All too often those decisions result in a reduction in the maintenance and operations activities of a district. Generally the thinking that goes into that decision is, Let s make the reduction(s) in areas that have the least direct impact on the teaching and learning that takes place in the classroom. More and more research is showing that that is a false economy and facilities should compete on the same priority level with instructional needs. The physical environment plays a major role in the health and safety of building occupants and has a measurable impact on the teaching and learning that occurs. Expenditure Comparisons There are many different ways you can look at data surrounding the maintenance (61 and 64) and operations (63) activities of school districts. We have chosen the following examples as representative of the types(s) of data that are available through OSPI to examine the issues of facilities maintenance funding in Washington School Districts. The scenarios presented are not intended to be all inclusive, but rather representative of the issue(s). Program 97 (District wide support) Activity comparisons for : One way to look at inequities and/or deficiencies of facilities maintenance funding across school districts is to look at what percentage of their budget they spend for these activities in relationship to both total district wide support (Program 97) and total district expenditures. When comparing costs of these activities to total district expenditures, the average in Washington school districts for activities is 6.15%. Our sample districts averaged 6.33 % with a range from a low of 5.76% to a high of 8.55% (Appendix B-1). If you include utilities the average expenditure for the sample districts jumps to 8.75% which is nearly identical to the state average of 8.72%. Again, the range varies greatly running from 7.24% to 12.25%. Within program 97 (district wide support) there is also a wide variation in the percentage of that budget that is spent on maintenance activities. The state average percentage of program 97 that is spent on activities is 43.42%. The average of our sample districts is similar at 45.16%. However, the range is considerable: from a low of 31.80% to a high of 50.34%. If utilities are included in the program 97 comparison we get similar results. The state average is 61.56% of the total program expenditures while the sample districts average 62.46%. Again the Page 11 of 44

12 range within the sample districts is significant; from a low of 45.86% to a high of 70.71% (Appendix B-2). Square footage comparisons Another way to look at differences in the ability of districts to maintain their facilities in a safe and healthy manner is to look at variances in different square footage comparisons. This portion of the report will discuss 3 different comparisons: How many square feet per FTE student a district has; How many square feet a district maintains per FTE employee in the maintenance and operations activities for the districts; and What the FTE employee cost per square foot is for each of the activities and the district as a whole. Square feet per FTE student: The more square feet per student a district has, the less crowded their schools are. Statewide the average square feet per student is just under 142 sq. ft. Our sample districts have a slightly higher average than the state at sq feet per student. At first glance, that looks pretty equal. However, the range within the sample is huge. The sample districts range from a crowded square feet per student to a high of square feet per student in Morton. Twelve of our districts are below the state average (from 66% to 97% of the state), and 13 are above the state average (from 101% to 200% of the state). Please see Appendix C-1 for the details. Square feet maintained per FTE employee: One indicator of how well a district can maintain safe and healthy schools is how may square feet each full time equivalent (FTE) maintenance and custodial employee is responsible for. The more square feet per employee, the less time he or she has to clean and/or maintain it. Taking a look at maintenance (activities 61 and 64), the state average of all districts is 83,450 square feet per FTE maintenance employee. That compares favorably to national data which indicates a median square feet maintained per full time maintenance worker is 100,720 (American School & University survey, April 2006). Our sample districts average is larger than both the state and national figures at 110,385 square feet per FTE maintenance employee. The range of averages is huge within our sample again demonstrating significant differences on how districts allocate resources. The range runs from 53,201 sq feet per FTE to 429,040 sq. feet per FTE. If you try to normalize the averages by removing the high and low ones, the sample average moves down to 97,934 sq. feet per FTE. This is still higher than the state average, but lower than the national median. Directing our attention to the custodial operations (activity 63), the average FTE custodial staff is responsible for cleaning 29,431 square feet in our sample districts. This is slightly higher than the state average of 28,172 sq. feet per FTE. Again the range of sq. feet per FTE custodian is responsible for is large. It goes from a high of 76,948 sq. feet to a low of 17,197 sq. feet. If we again remove the high and low numbers, the average square footage per FTE employee in our sample districts drops to 27,750 sq. feet. This is lower than the state average, but is still higher than the national median of 25,173 (American School & University survey, April 2006). This information is summarized in Appendix C-2. Page 12 of 44

13 Expenditures per Square Foot: Another way to look at how expenditures compare/vary from district to district is by looking at how much they spent per square foot in different categories including total district expenditures. Appendices C-3 and C-3-1 look at these relationships. The state wide average expenditure based on dollars spent per sq. foot of total facilities maintained is $57.57 /sq. foot. Our sample districts spent $55.82 /sq. foot or 97% of the state average amount. If we look at the range of differences however, we see quite a variance; from $29.77 to $82.42 /sq. foot. There is no simple reason for these differences. It could be how the district decides to prioritize its needs. It could also be that one district is overcrowded with a low number of square feet per student while another district s enrollment has dropped and they have excess capacity or any number of combinations. Our sample districts spent an average of $1.21 /sq. foot on maintenance (61 & 64) compared to the state average of $1.35 /sq. foot (89.6% of state). The range within our sample is large from 8 a square foot to $2.17 /sq. foot (or 5.9% to 160.7% of state average). The numbers are similar in custodial operations (activity 63). Our sample districts spent an average of $2.00 /sq. foot, or 97% of the state average of $2.05 / sq. foot. The sample ranges go from 88 (42.9% of state) to $2.95/sq. foot (143.9% of state). When we examine the combination of maintenance and operations activities our sample districts at $3.20/sq. foot are slightly below the state average of $3.40/sq. foot (94.1%). Since the individual activities show a wide variance in sq. foot costs, it only follows that the combined activities would also do so and it s true. While the sample districts and the state have very similar averages the range goes from 97 to $4.56/sq. foot for the sample. Appendix C-3 summarizes the above data broken down by specific region, size and district with additional specific region and size break-outs. Appendix C-3-1 also includes, on a square footage basis, what percent of the districts total general fund resources are spent on activities 61, 63, and 64. This differs from the information contained in Appendix B-1. That data compares the percentage of total district funds spent in each activity regardless of square footage. Both sets of data continue to point out the variances and inequalities of how districts decide to allocate their funds to maintain safe and healthy school environments for their students and staff. FTE Student enrollment comparisons: Another interesting way to look at variances between districts is to review how many students each employee in both maintenance and operations (and the combined activities) has to support in the school district(s). An argument can be made that the larger the number of students each employee has to support, the more difficult it is to maintain safe and healthy facilities. In our sample districts the average number of students each maintenance worker supports is 533. The average for all districts is 588 students. As in our other examples, the range within our sample is considerable from a low 322 students (2 small districts didn t report any maintenance employees) to a high of 1,237 students. When we look at our sample districts operations employees, each one supports 186 FTE students just below the state average of 199 FTE students. The range in our sample goes from a low of 103 students to a high of 272 students. Finally, when we examine the combined maintenance and operations employees each employee in our sample districts supports an average of 137 FTE students just below the state average of 148 students. The range in the sample districts goes from a low of 88 students to 272 students (59.3% to 118.6% of state average). The supporting data can be found in Appendix D-1. Page 13 of 44

14 Five year comparison: The final FTE student comparisons can be found in Appendices D-2 and D-2-1. They both relate how much districts expend per pupil for the maintenance (61 and 64) and operations (63) activities as well as total district expenditures. Both appendices compare the level of expenditures to what was spent on the same activities in Appendix D-2 displays the percentage change over that period of time while appendix D-2-1 displays the dollar amount of the changes. Again there are large variances between the sample districts. The most significant statistics are that while per pupil expenditures for total district expenditures have increased 13.73% and 13.39% for our sample districts and the state average respectively, per pupil expenditures for maintenance and operations have not kept pace. State wide per pupil expenditures for these activities have increased 3.72% less than the increase for total district expenditures. In our sample districts that difference was less, at 2.46%. Using either example it is evident that districts are using less resource per pupil in relation to total district expenditures than they were five years earlier, making it more difficult to continue to maintain safe and healthy environments within which effective teaching and learning can take place. Conclusions: Facilities maintenance operations issues: After reviewing the above comparisons, you will note that there is a great deal of consistency between the ways the sample districts allocate resources for the maintenance and operation of their facilities and the state averages for all districts. Even more striking however, is the fact that though the averages are similar, the ranges of differences from district-to-district are large. This harkens back to the fact that each individual district, based on their own perceived needs and priorities, establishes their budgets for their facility needs in competition with the educational priorities of the district. Unfortunately, in a time of tight resources, these differences lead to an inequality of safe and healthy facilities from district-to-district. It is not the purpose of this report to provide a solution to these inequalities, but rather to introduce you to the issues and the challenges that are involved. WAMOA is offering its assistance to help identify appropriate state roles in all the solutions that may be considered. School Deficiency Repair Grant: It is important that the School Deficiency Repair Grant proposed in both the Governor s and OSPI budget requests be enacted during this legislative session. Using last years experience with the Small Schools Repair Grant as an example, there are least $9 million of unmet critical school facilities needs in school districts that applied for the grants. It is vital that this program be continued in the foreseeable future to address health and safety issues in our schools and improve teaching and learning for all students in Washington school districts. Page 14 of 44

15 Appendix A-1 May 18, 2006 Washington Association of School Business Officials Washington Association of Maintenance & Operations Administrators Washington School Nutrition Association Washington Association of Pupil Transportation Dear, The purpose of this letter is to update you on the work that the Washington Association of Maintenance and Operations Administrators (WAMOA) has completed in their review of the current results of the Emergency School Repair Grant program ( ). Thank you very much for your fine support of the 2006 grant program which funded 26 school districts who have critical, emergency health and safety needs. The total amount of the grants funded is $2,253,609. These school districts are extremely appreciative of this funding as they have encountered these challenges with few resources to meet them. We had a tremendous response to the requests for 2006 grant applications, with a total of 126 completed grants submitted. A committee representing WAMOA and OSPI has reviewed the applications which were not funded and has come to these conclusions. Many of the requests were for critical health and safety needs; however, there were some which were not of serious emergency need. We realize there were questions of legislators during the 2006 session, and we want to address these issues. The objective review by our committee also considered financial hardship as a factor in meeting the emergent needs. Here are the results of our review of the 100 districts who were not funded. Twenty districts had high financial hardship and critical emergencies for a request of $1,613,527. Fifty-eight districts also had high financial hardship with significant emergent threats for a total of $5,362,204. Eleven districts had moderate financial hardship with similar emergent threats for a total of $979,994, and eleven districts had low financial hardship with comparable emergent threats for a total of $996,413. In addition, there were seven districts who submitted incomplete applications in the amount of $286,196. The total amount requested was $11,491,893. The enclosed document summarizes the school districts needs. The 100 school districts not funded represent all types and locations of schools in our state: 24 districts with a student enrollment over 2,000 FTE, 76 districts with a student enrollment less than 2,000 FTE; 60 eastside districts and 40 westside districts. Again, we appreciate your support of the Emergency School Repair Program, as this funding will result in safer buildings and thereby increased opportunities for students to learn more effectively. Sincerely, Carl Larson, WAMOA President Mitch Denning, AEA Consultant encl Alliance of Educational Associations 825 Fifth Avenue S.E. Olympia, WA Page 15 of 44

16 Appendix A Small Repair Grant Awards and Ranking District Name Ave. Type of Repair Requested Requested Amount Running Total Score AWARDED 1 Palouse School District 76 Sidewalk, Bleacher Repair, Phone System $90, $90, Wishram School District 74.5 Roof, Fire Alarm System $100, $190, Evaline School District 74 Replace Heating System $50, $240, Orient School District 72.5 Fire Alarm System $100, $340, Onalaska School District 70 Roof $99, $439, Tekoa School District 69.5 Building Structural, Room Ventilation $72, $511, Lopez School District 69 Building Structure, Flood Damage $100, $611, Keller School District 66.5 Roof $100, $711, Roosevelt School District 66.5 Roof, Building Structure $100, $811, Dayton School District 66 Boilers, Electrical System $82, $894, Omak School District 65.5 Roof $98, $992, Steptoe School District 65.5 Heating, Roof, Sidewalk $100, $1,092, Summit Valley School District 65 Roof, Heating $93, $1,185, Montesano School District 64.5 Roof, Kitchen, Carpeting Repair $100, $1,285, Republic School District 64 Fire Alarm System $100, $1,385, Liberty School District 63.5 HVAC, Lighting $85, $1,470, Mary Walker School District 63.5 Roof, Carpet, Repair Cafeteria $94, $1,565, Lamont School District 61.5 Water System, Asbestos Removal $100, $1,665, Sunnyside School District 61.5 Open Ditch $100, $1,765, Zillah School District 61.5 Roof $75, $1,840, Onion Creek School District 61 Building Structure $100, $1,940, Vader School District 61 Restroom Handicap Stalls $31, $1,972, Evergreen School District (Stevens) 60 Asbestos, Windows, Parking Safety $94, $2,066, Oakville School District 60 HVAC, Lighting $100, $2,166, Kettle Falls School District 59.5 Building Structure, Asbestos $83, $2,249, Green Mountain School District 59 Handicap Accessibility $4, $2,253, NOT FUNDED 27 North Mason School District 58.5 Roof, Building Structure $97, $2,351, Columbia (Stevens) School District 57.5 HVAC, Asbestos, Flooring Repair $98, $2,449, Pateros School District 57 Roof, Building Structure $88, $2,537, Sequim School District 56.5 Fire Alarm System $100, $2,637, Washtucna School District 56.5 HVAC $100, $2,737, Curlew School District 56 Boilers, HVAC, Asbestos Removal $100, $2,837, Chewelah School District 55.5 Fire Alarm, Handicap Access $75, $2,912, Toledo School District 55 Fire Alarm System $50, $2,963, Bickleton School District 54.5 Heating $100, $3,063, North River School District 52.5 Roof $41, $3,105, Wellpinit School District 52 Drinking Water, Doors, Structural $97, $3,202, Quilcene School District 52 Roof, Building Structural $100, $3,302, Oroville School District 51.5 Roof $88, $3,390, Wilbur School District 51.5 Electrical, Insulation Repair $100, $3,491, Rosalia School District 51 HVAC, Lighting, Handicap $100, $3,591, LaCrosse School District 51 Boiler System, Heating System $98, $3,689, Harrington School District 50.5 Science Lab Safety, Handicap $80, $3,769, Northport School District 50.5 Cafeteria, Kitchen Repairs $18, $3,787, Okanogan School District 49.5 Fire System, Sidewalks $100, $3,887, South Bend School District 49 Roof, Gym Repair $64, $3,952, Wahkiakum School District 49 HVAC, Roof, Boiler Replacement $49, $4,001, Clarkston School District 49 Roof, Heating $100, $4,101, College Place School District 49 Fire System $100, $4,201, Touchet School District 48 Fire Alarm System, Sprinklers $100, $4,301, Hockinson School District 48 Roof, Security System $29, $4,330, Aberdeen School District 47.5 Water, Exits $113, $4,444, Brinnon School District 46.5 Roof, Handicap Access $100, $4,544, Cascade School District 46 Roof, HVAC, Fire Alarm $100, $4,644, Sprague School District 45.5 Phone System, Asbestos $95, $4,739, Bridgeport School District 45 HVAC, Windows, Asbestos $100, $4,839, Highland School District 45 Oil Leak into the Domestic Water $100, $4,939, Nooksack School District 45 HVAC $100, $5,039, Mansfield School District 44.5 Sidewalks, Handicap Access $100, $5,139, Napavine School District 44.5 Handicap Restroom Access $32, $5,172, Pomeroy School District 44.5 Roof, HVAC, Carpeting Repair $100, $5,272, Colville School District 43.5 HVAC $100, $5,372, East Valley School District (Spokane) 43 Playground Repair $48, $5,420, Bellingham School District 42 Water, Asbestos $190, $5,610, Page 16 of 44

17 65 Deer Park School District 41 Roof, HVAC $197, $5,808, Castle Rock School District 40.5 Roof, HVAC $100, $5,908, Port Townsend School District 40.5 Roof, Building Structure $100, $6,008, Chehalis School District 40 Fire Alarm, Student Security $85, $6,093, East Valley School District (Yakima) 40 HVAC, Fire Alarm, Handicap Access $100, $6,193, White Salmon Valley School District 40 Roof, Carpet Repair $100, $6,293, Battle Ground School District 39 Roof, HVAC $100, $6,393, Grand Coulee Dam School District 39 Roof $100, $6,493, Manson School District 39 HVAC, Lighting $100, $6,593, Marysville School District 39 Building Structural and Electrical Repair $90, $6,683, Goldendale School District 38.5 Emergency Alarm, Emergency Exits $90, $6,773, North Thurston School District 38.5 Fire Alarm System $100, $6,873, Bremerton School District 37.5 HVAC, Building Structure $100, $6,973, Thorp School District 37.5 Building Structural, Room Ventilation $100, $7,073, Kent School District 36.5 HVAC $100, $7,173, Valley School District 36.5 Structural Repair, Water $80, $7,253, Colton School District 36 Handicap Access, Bleacher Repair $85, $7,338, Freeman School District 36 Bleachers, Handicap Access $87, $7,425, Palisades School District 36 Building Structure $58, $7,484, Methow Valley School District 35.5 HVAC, Sidewalk Repair $100, $7,584, Davenport School District 35 Bleachers, Playfield Repair $100, $7,684, Inchelium School District 35 Fire Alarm System $37, $7,721, Waitsburg School District 35 Ventilation System $35, $7,756, Wenatchee School District 35 Lighting, Fire System $104, $7,861, Entiat School District 34 Classroom and Sports fields Repair $100, $7,961, Mount Adams School District 34 Lighting, Handicap Access $98, $8,060, North Franklin School District 34 Carpet, Gym, Parking Lot Repair $100, $8,160, Ridgefield School District 34 HVAC $10, $8,171, Riverside School District 34 Ventilation, Handicap Access $94, $8,265, Reardan-Edwall School District 33.5 Pipe Replacement $100, $8,365, Skykomish School District 33.5 Handicap Accessibility $131, $8,497, Cashmere School District 33 Fire Alarm, Security Systems $73, $8,571, Grandview School District 32.5 Roof, Sidewalks, Fire Alarm $100, $8,671, Naselle-Grays River Valley SD 32.5 Bleachers, Emergency Exits $65, $8,736, Wishkah Valley School District 32.5 Locker Room Repair $100, $8,836, Hoquiam School District 32 Carpeting, Asbestos Removal $100, $8,936, Mabton School District 32 Bleachers $84, $9,021, Chimacum School District 31.5 Roof, Gym Repair, Sidewalk Repair $100, $9,121, Lake Stevens School District 31.5 Security System $104, $9,225, Quillayute Valley School District 31.5 Fire and Phone Systems $100, $9,325, Loon Lake School District 30.5 Lighting, Sidewalk Repair $100, $9,425, Waterville School District 29.5 Building Structural $100, $9,525, Educational Service District HVAC, Fire Alarm $94, $9,620, West Valley School District (Spokane) 28 Bus and Parking Safety $100, $9,720, Odessa School District 27.5 Fire System, Building Structural Repair $100, $9,820, Rainier School District 27.5 Track Field Repair $86, $9,906, Camas School District 27 Handicap Access, Asbestos $100, $10,006, Toutle Lake School District 27 Building Structure $102, $10,108, Tukwila School District 26 HVAC $100, $10,208, McCleary School District 25.5 Kitchen, Emergency Exits $100, $10,308, Mount Vernon School District 24.5 Elevator Installation $102, $10,411, Bethel School District 24 HVAC, Water System $0.00 $10,411, Mead School District 24 Asbestos Removal $62, $10,474, Walla Walla School District 24 Room Acoustics $100, $10,574, Queets-ClearWater School District 22.5 Emergency Generator $100, $10,674, Kiona-Benton City School District 21.5 Locking System $24, $10,698, Richland School District 21.5 Building and Sidewalk Repair $105, $10,803, Meridian School District 21 Boiler System, Roof Repair $98, $10,902, Newport School District 20 Insulation, Noise Reduction $100, $11,002, Lake Chelan School District 19.5 Refrigeration Construction $4, $11,007, Sedro-Woolley School District 18 Ventilation and Sidewalk Repair $100, $11,107, Shoreline School District 6 Water Tanks and Play Field Repair $38, $11,145, INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS 127 Auburn School District - Incomplete 0 HVAC $2, $11,148, Crescent School District - Incomplete 0 $8, $11,156, Ephrata School District - Removed 0 HVAC $100, $11,256, Garfield School District - Incomplete 0 $100, $11,356, Lyle School District - Incomplete 0 HVAC, Building Structure $69, $11,426, Southside School District - Incomplete 0 Building Locking System $2, $11,429, Yakima School District - Incomplete 0 $2, $11,431, Total of Repair grant funds requested by districts $11,431, Page 17 of 44

18 Appendix A-3 Report on Small Repairs Grant Non-Recipient Unfunded Needs Washington Association of Maintenance and Operations Administrators (WAMOA) Grant Summary Information 133 Total Applicants $ 2,253, Districts Awarded 1,613, Districts Not Funded - High Financial Hardship / Emergencies 5,362, Districts Not Funded - High Financial Hardship / Emergent Threats 979, Districts Not Funded - Medium Financial Hardship / Emergent Threats 996, Districts Not Funded - Low Financial Hardship / Emergent Threats 286,196 7 Districts Applications Incomplete $ 11,491,893 Total Grant Funds Requested ( $ 9,238,284 total unfunded ) Districts Not Funded 24 Large School Districts FTE 76 Small School Districts FTE 60 Eastside Districts 40 Westside Districts Unfunded Requests Details Categorized by Financial Hardship and Emergency Priorities High Financial Hardship Priorities / Emergency 20 School Districts: $ 1,613,527 total request 15 districts 2,000 or less FTE 5 districts 2,000 or greater FTE 9 Westside districts 11 Eastside districts Roofing Systems North Mason: roof failure; water in classrooms Oroville, Pateros: leaking roofs; water in classrooms HVAC Systems Bethel: cold classrooms; leaking storage tanks Ridgefield: replace failed HVAC system Thorp: no air circulation causing student health problems Page 18 of 44

19 High Financial Hardship Priorities / Emergency (continued) Water Quality Aberdeen: water system contamination - no backflow preventers Highland: old leaking oil tank threatens water system Marysville, Quilcene: failing water lines are rapidly deteriorating Northport: health risk exposures due to failing kitchen equipment Security / Safety Cashmere: gang activity damage to buildings Kiona-Benton: inoperable building door locks McCleary, West Valley (Spokane): students at risk in hazardous drop-off area Bremerton: serious structural problems - soffits endangering students Floor Structure / Coverings Entiat: health risk exposures due to mold under carpets Building Structure Wellpinit: repair concrete exterior wall for the main building/gym Fire Alert Systems Okanogan, Toledo: unrepairable alarm systems; ineffective alert to students High Financial Hardship Priorities / Emergent Threats 58 School Districts: $ 5,362,204 total requests 48 districts 2,000 or less FTE 10 districts 2,000 or greater FTE 21 Westside districts 37 Eastside districts Roofing Systems Cascade, Chimacum, Clarkston, Deer Park, Grand Coulee Dam, North River, Pomeroy, Touchet: leaking roofs causing poor air quality with molds HVAC Systems Bickleton: cold classrooms due to failing heating system Bridgeport, Castle Rock, College Place, Columbia (Stevens), Colville, Curlew, ESD 101, East Valley (Yakima), Methow Valley, Nooksack Valley, Palisades, Reardan-Edwall,Rosalia, Waitsburg, Washtucna: poor air quality; parts unavailable for old systems;system replacement needed; poor environment causing health risk exposures Security / Safety Brinnon: students endangered by falling ceiling tiles Harrington: emergency lab shower and proper ventilation needed for classrooms Manson: unsafe electrical system Newport: security risks from intruder entry Odessa: intruder threat due to failing exterior doors Queets-Clearwater: child safety risk due to failing playground equipment Rainier: student hazard caused by aging rubber on track Shoreline: health risk exposures due to inadequate hot water in bathrooms/ lassrooms Toutle Lake: failing emergency notification system Wenatchee: health risk exposures to PCBs Colton, Freeman, Lacrosse, Mabton, Naselle-Grays River: serious injury risks to students and visitors due to failing bleacher systems Page 2 of 4 Page 19 of 44

20 High Financial Hardship Priorities / Emergent Threats (continued) Floor Structure / Coverings Loon Lake: carpets a serious trip hazard North Franklin: safety and health risks due to deterioration of carpets White Salmon: illnesses connected to carpets and flooring Fire Alert Systems Chehalis, Grandview, Hockinson, Quillayute Valley, Wahkiakum: safety risks due to inadequate/ineffective emergency alert system Building Structure Battle Ground: structural damage due to water entering building Valley: 1910 building needs structural repair and replacement water well Camas, Hoquiam: health risks due to asbestos in kitchen ceilings, VAT flooring Handicapped Access Mansfield, Mount Adams, Mount Vernon, Napavine, Riverside, Skykomish, Wishkah Valley; limited or no student accessibility to buildings requires ADA compliant upgrade Moderate Financial Hardship Priorities / Emergent Threats 11 School Districts: $ 979,944 total requests 7 districts 2,000 or less FTE 4 districts 2,000 or greater FTE 7 Westside districts 4 Eastside districts HVAC Systems Meridian, Tukwila: cold classrooms require boiler systems to be replaced Security / Safety Lake Stevens: intruder and safety risks due to unsecured buildings and campus Walla Walla: safety and other instructions require acoustical treatment to limit noise Building Structure Wilbur: failing windows allowing cold and excessive moisture in classrooms Sedro-Wooley: health risk exposures require asbestos abatement in service tunnels Fire Alert Systems Inchelium, North Thurston, Sequim: alarms not heard by students, no emergency warning system requires upgrades/replacements Handicapped Access Chewelah, South Bend: no student access at building entries require ADA upgrades/ elevator Low Financial Hardship Priorities / Emergent Threats 11 School Districts: $ 996,413 total requests 6 districts 2,000 or less FTE 5 districts 2,000 or greater FTE 3 Westside districts 8 Eastside districts Page 3 of 4 Page 20 of 44