August 23, 2017 State Allocation Board Meeting

August 23, 2017 State Allocation Board Meeting


Chairperson Ortega: Good afternoon, everyone I’ll call to order the August 23rd meeting of the State Allocation Board. Please call the roll. Ms. Jones: Senator Allen. Ms. Jones: Senator Nguyen. Ms. Jones: Senator Pan. Ms. Jones: Assemblymember Nazarian. Ms. Jones: Assemblymember Chavez. Assemblymember Chavez: here. Ms. Jones: Assemblymember O’Donnell. Assemblymember O’Donnell: here. Ms. Jones: Juan Mireles: here. Juan Mireles: here. Ms. Jones: Cesar Diaz. Cesar Diaz: here. Ms. Jones: Jeffery Maguire. Jeffery Maguire: here, Ms. Jones: Eraina Ortega. Eraina Ortega: here. We have a quorum. Chairperson Ortega: Okay. We have a quorum. So we’ll go ahead and get
started and if we come up to any action items, we will leave the roll open for
the Senators to join in later. So let’s start with our first action item, which
would be the Minutes from the June 28th meeting. Any Corrections or comments on
the Minutes? Any public comments? Is there a motion? Assemblymember Chavez: Move approval. Assemblymember O’Donnell: Second. All right, move by Mr. Chavez. Second by Mr.
O’Donnell. All in favor of approval the minutes please say aye. (Ayes) Adopted
unanimously. We’ll move to Item three. Ms. Silverman: We have the Executive Officer’s Statement, and we have a few announcements tonight. We’d like to share that at our last
board meeting, early June, we had a certification around that was open and
that closed June 8th and we had nearly four hundred and forty four million
dollars in projects that submitted a cert and those certs are good
from July 1st through December 31st, 2017. And the certifications included the
projects that the board took action on June 5th which was a significant amount
of projects that were on the true unfunded list, so that’s nearly three
hundred and seventy million dollars. Next item we wanted to share is there
was also a Seismic Mitigation program project that’s also in the Consent
Agenda for two point one million dollars. We have an upcoming bond sale next week.
The Treasurer’s office has a scheduled bond sale for this program. And so in
lieu of having a meeting at the end of September, we’re recommending to have a
consent only agenda on September 6th. So the board will have the ability to take
action on the projects that have submitted a certification. And with that,
we’re also working on a joint agency workshop a couple of venues
as we speak with the Division of State Architect and Department of Education. I
know Division of State Architect has tentative timelines sometime in November,
but some of the outreach opportunities that we have moving forward rather
quickly, we’ll be partnering up with Department of Education and with our
focus primarily on small school district outreach. So more announcements in that
area. And again, our next meeting is September 6th. Chairperson Ortega: Okay. Any questions for Ms. Silverman? Any comments on any of those items? Seeing none, we’ll move to the Consent Agenda. Any comments or questions Ms. Silverman? Anything to report? Assemblymember O’Donnell: I’ll move it. Okay. Moved by Mr. O’Donnell. Mr. Mireles: Second. Chairperson Ortega: Second by Mr. Mireles. I’ll spread out the seconds. Any public comment on the Consent items? All right. Seeing none, all in favor say aye (Ayes) and we’ll leave that open for the Senators. Financial reports. Ms. Silverman: Financial reports, we
had no fund releases to report for the month of July. Most of the
activity occurred in the earlier months. But we do want to highlight in the
Status of Funds that’s on page 91, we have a number of closeout adjustments
and activities, four to be exact, for over $10.1 million dollars and that
actually will result in districts having increased on their adjustments to the
original grant. Also we have several closeout activity of $2.2 million dollars
coming back to the program. We have 60 additional apportionments going out
in the Emergency Repair Program. That represents nearly $5 million dollars and
that’s a result of some collection activities on the Emergency Repair
Program. So nearly a $2.2 million dollars coming back to the program and that’s what we want to announce for the Status of Funds. Chairperson Ortega: Okay. Any questions or comments on that report? All right. seeing none, please know for the record that Dr. pan has
joined us. Thank you. We’ll move to the appeal items under Tab 6. I’m going to
recommend that we take them out of order. I know Mr. McGuire is here on a couple
of them, so let’s start with Burnt Ranch. Yes please! Go ahead and we’ll ask staff
to just do a little summary of the appeal before us and then take care of comments. Mr. LaPask: Thank you. Brian LaPask with OPSC.Burnt Ranch Elementary School
District is a one-school district located in remote Trinity County. In
March of this year, they discover water intrusion in every building on their
campus. It’s one-school district, so it’s the entire school. They’ve evacuated
those buildings and they have temporary housing in place. They do meet financial
hardship approval and they have a two piece appeal. They’re asking for
replacement funding to do rehabilitation work. They qualify for replacement
funding but the district feels it might be more cost effective to actually rehab
the buildings because of their location. And while we have augmentations for
geographic location and for remote areas and difficulty of construction, it might
make a little more sense for them to be able to get the replacement funds in
order to do the rehab work because the costs are escalated. We’ve provided funds
similarly to the Klamath Trinity District which actually shares a
boundary with this district, so they’re in the same general area of Trinity
County. So we do recommend that we provide replacement funding for rehab
work. They’re also asking for an immediate apportionment of design funds
so they can get their project underway and we support that as well. Chairperson Ortega: Okay. Mr. LaPask: I can answer
any questions. Chairperson Ortega: Any questions before we turn to Mr. McGuire. Senator McGuire: Madam Chair, thank you so much for
allowing to be here today and, members, thank you very much for all of your work
on this request. Madam Chair, before I get into the words in regard to Burnt Ranch, I just want to take a moment if it’s okay with you, to thank your Executive
Officer directly to my right. Ms. Silverman I got to say is one of the
most responsive, hard-working, and dedicated public servants that we had
working at the state. She has been tremendous, so I just want to take a moment
to say thank you so much. Truly — along with Brian. Brian, you have
been a wonderful individual work with all throughout, incredibly responsive and
some of these really difficult challenges. So I just want to take a
moment to say how amazed we are to be able to work with your staff and it’s
the vision of your board who brought these two wonderful individuals out here
to the State. So thank you very much as well. And I’m really grateful to be with
you madam chair and the board in requesting the support of the two
applications. The first that will be advanced is Burnt Ranch Elementary
School. Both of these school districts are located in Trinity County, and as you
all know, Trinity is one of the poorest in most rural counties in our state.
13,000 residents live over 3208 square miles if you’re to flatten the Alps it would be the size of Texas up in Trinity. And
these two districts serve the communities’ children in
significant ways and their campuses are the gathering grounds for neighbors.
Trinity County has the second highest rate of homeless students in the state
and for many children, these schools are the most stable part of their lives. And
that’s also many times where they’re able to access those meals as well. And
Burnt Ranch School serves approximately 100 total kids, kindergarten to eighth
grade, and they’ve been devastated by mold. I was able to meet with the
superintendent principal here earlier this year. Last year, they
learned that every classroom and every building was unusable. The school which
serves as a hub for the community is now completely operating out of portables.
They use a majority of their building reserve funds which they had set aside
for permanent to go to move students into a safer, mold-free
environment to be able to open up school and keep school operations moving.
Burnt Ranch School’s population is 35 percent Native American
and over 80 percent of students are on the free and reduced lunch program, and the school
facility project will not only rebuild the campus but, will also
rebuild the heart of the community, and, Madam Chair, the principal superintendent
is also here today to be able to answer any questions as well. Chairperson Ortega: Thank you. So I’ll ask — Ms. Graham, did you want to come on up and if you had any additional — members, I’m not aware of any objection to approving this appeal, so we’ll ask Ms. Graham if she
has any comments. Ms. Graham: Again I want to thank you all for letting us be here and taking your time out to listen to our appeal today. I just — Senator McGuire
really summed up our situation. We are an excellent school that’s working under really harrowing conditions right now. our students are coming to school every
day and they’re trying their best, but we are not able to provide many of the
services that we need to give them. Some of those happen outside. If the speech teacher shows up, she has to meet with the child at a picnic table outside. All
of our services have been compromised. we are the hub of the community. We
perform every service available. We have our kids show up early in the morning we bust them to and from school. We have an extra bus in the afternoon because kids need to stay at our place — our school in the after-school program. We’ve just
recently gotten high-speed Internet and we’re not even sure how that’s going to
work. We’ve had lots of challenges with that. So our facility is paramount to
anything that goes on in our community and I just have to hope that that’s
clear between what I said and what senator McGuire said. So I want to thank
you for your time. Chairperson Ortega: Thank you. Any questions or comments on — Assemblymember Chavez: Move approval. Assemblymember O’Donnell: Second. Chairperson Ortega: It’s been moved and seconded. Dr. Pan. Senator Pan: Certainly we’re very supportive and appreciate your testimony. So the central issue about the mold — and I understand there’s some challenges given the remoteness and accessibility of construction and so
forth. We do believe just by rehabbing the
buildings we’re going to be able to address I mean there’s rehabbing versus
constructing new buildings that are so Ms. Graham: Right. Senator Pan: and so forth, but I mean I think that I think
the central issue is that we’re gonna be able to take care of this mold
problem and, to the best degree we’re able, our construction
techniques are available, that we’re not going to have the mold problem come back.
So it makes more sense to rehab than it is to — so whatever infrastructure’s
going to be left is not going to cause a the mold to return of people aren’t going to be concerned that, oh, well you know, whatever — Ms. Graham: Yeah. It should be taken care of. Senator Pan: Okay. I think we have the technology and what we need to do to make it —
Senator Pan: Okay. Ms. Graham: — safe and clean from now on. Senator Pan: Alright. Well I just want to be sure we have the public confidence in that and that — you
know, it’s such a critical piece of your community that we would just want
to be sure that we’re taking care of the problem. Chairperson Ortega: Mr. LaPask, do you want to speak into any part of the process of the design or the project as it goes forward that
would address Dr. Pan’s questions, just in terms of accountability for the
funds, oversight of the project plans. Mr. LaPask: Sure. Yes. You know, when we approve these projects,
they have to have an engineer’s report In this case, it’ll be probably an
industrial hygienist or an environmental hygienist and they’re going to actually
outline the minimum work to mitigate that, and so we have a professional that
will outline the minimum scope of work needed to be done and we’ll have
concurrence of that from the appropriate governmental agency in the area, I think
probably Trinity County Health or something along those minor, so we
typically trust that they know what they’re doing. They’re the experts
in that field and we’ll be funding their projects accordingly. Senator Pan: Okay. Chairperson Ortega: Great. I think that answers the question. Thank you. All right. Any other comments? or questions? We have a motion and a second on this item. I don’t think we need to call the roll. We’ll ask — give Senator Nguyen just a second to come
up. Senator Nguyen, we’re on the appeal for the Burnt Ranch School item. So all in favor of the motion to approve the appeal please say aye (Ayes) Chairperson Ortega: And that’s approved unanimously. We’ll leave it open for Senator Allen. Thank you, Ms. Graham. Mr. Graham: Thank you. We’ll move to the Mountain
Valley appeal. Ms. Kampmeinert: the Mountain Valley School District is facing similar circumstances to Burnt Ranch and that they have discovered water intrusion and mold. It’s
also a small school district and they have had to close many facilities in
order to address the mold situation. So they have applied under the facility
hardship program and they do meet the qualifications of that program for
replacement funding. They’re early in the design stages of their project and the
appeal requests is a little bit different than what Burnt Ranch is
asking for today. Mountain Valley does not meet the criteria that we have in regulations for financial hardship that would allow staff to process this
application administratively. But in the regulations, there is an option for
school districts to come to the board with other evidence to see if the board
will grant them financial hardship status. The financial hardship status
would allow them to receive a design apportionment for a portion of the
project costs that they can continue to figure out the methods to address this
project. The district has provided information in the appeal that indicates
that they have faced some severe challenges financially with dealing with
the mold. They have exhausted local efforts and they do plan to put a bond on the
ballot in November to seek a match from their local community, but they don’t
know the outcome of the election yet but they’re feeling that they’re getting
some good positive feedback from the community. The issue still is that
they have closed classrooms, so they do not have any other funding available to
them that would allow them to continue to mitigate this situation. They have
looked into issuing a certificate of participation, and Trinity County Office of Education has weighed in that would — that the
county office would actually have to issue that because there is no
identified way of paying it back at this moment. So that would be dependent on the bond or state funding. So that doesn’t seem to be a great option for the
district at this point as well. But they have done everything they can to this
point to get further along in the project and they are seeking board’s
approval of financial hardship status. If the board does approve that, they are
also asking that the board consider providing an immediate apportionment
outside of the priority funding certification period so that they can
get the cash immediately to continue planning the project and addressing the
situation. Staff is seeking board direction on the financial hardship
component, but if the board does approve that piece, then we do recommend that the
board also approve an immediate apportionment which is Option A on this
item. Chairperson Ortega: Thank you. Senator McGuire. Senator McGuire: Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And I apologize having my back to you. I’m so sorry. Madam Chair, thank you so much for
allowing the two presentations. Mountain Valley Unified School District is also facing an emergency situation with mold. They have been closing facilities across
its high school and elementary school campuses. I’d like to detail some of
the challenges they have. No longer available on the campuses are kitchens.
The library at the high school is now closed. the high school locker rooms are closed. The cafeterias at both the elementary and
high schools are closed. The high school agricultural building is closed and
supertintin Miller who is here today, her office is also closed because of mold
conditions. Much like Burt Ranch, Mountain Valley Schools serve students who are in
need. Over 80 percent of students qualify for free and reduced price lunch, which are
now prepared at mobile kitchens because kitchen facilities are no longer
accessible to any of the employees. Mountain Valley Unified School District
comes before you today with unique requests, as you just heard, because of
the district’s characteristics prohibited it for providing the typical
matching funds necessary. They have made a true effort, I got to say they’re very
innovative to identify funding, and although the district serves a
significant catchment area, it’s bonding capacity is less than that $5
million to provide a match that will need approval for financial hardship
from your board. And we are grateful that Debbie Miller, superintendent Mountain
View Unified School District is here today to be able to answer any technical
questions and, again thank you so much for allowing the presentation today. and
anyone else who wanted to speak on this Chairperson Ortega: Thank you. Ms. Miller, did you want to join us? And anyone else who wanted to speak on this item feel free to come on up. Ms. Miller: Senator McGuire does such a nice job I’m not sure I should be up
here. Thank you all for listening. Mountain Valley Unified is just like
Burnt Ranch. It is very small, very remote. We’re 45 minutes winding mountain
roads from the next nearest school. So it’s not like our kids, if we can’t take
care of them, can just go somewhere to neighbor’s. They can’t do that. So we
barely miss all of the criteria. we thought until last winter that we were
really good stewards of our resources and our money. We have never gone out for
a bond. We haven’t needed to. We have kept up our buildings and then we needed —
we had a broken heater and we wanted to use our Prop 39 funds and they went up
into the rafters and came back down and said, hmm, there’s a problem. So we
tested everywhere and indeed there is problems. So as Senator McGuire said, we
have a lot of areas closed down, but we need to, you know, get rid of the
health and safety concerns and rebuild. We’ve had probably around a
million dollars in our reserve funds. We’ve been salting money away and, you
know, we thought we were really doing a good job there, and now those are
completely by the end of September, we will pay the last
abatement bill to get rid of the mold and we will be broke. So it’s kind of
like this is unexpected and unfortunate, and so we’re here hat in hand because
I’m not sure what else to do. We need money to rebuild and get our kids back
in the schools and be able to feed them properly because often we were all three
meals of their day and now we’re having trouble doing that. Chairperson Ortega: thank you. Any questions? Dr. Pan. Senator Pan: Thank you. And I appreciate my seatmate’s
presentation. And I just wanted clarify to the — and with the staff that part of the
reason they just miss is because actually the land value for doing the
bonding has been somewhat artificially elevated for — Ms. Miller: Yes. We’re, we’re a pot farming
community now. It’s a little weird. Senator Pan: So anyway, — well, let’s put it in this way. We have a lot of communities that are
potentially asset rich but actually revenue poor. Ms. Miller: Yes. Senator Pan: So I mean I
think this is something we need to do since the kids in the community
you know, we need — and I think this particular circumstance is not one of
the school district’s making and so I would be pleased to move the appeal. Chairperson Ortega: Okay. Assemblymember Nazarian: Second. Chairperson Ortega: Okay. Moved and Second and you’re moving Option A, right? Senator Pan: Option A, yes. Chairperson Ortega: Right, to expedite the funds. Okay. Any other comment on this? All right. Seeing none, we have a motion and a second. All in favor of approval of the appeal please say aye. (Ayes) Chairperson Ortega: That passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. And we can move back to the Norwalk-La Mirada item. Mr. Nanjo: Madam Chair before we go
there if I can ask for a clarification Chairperson Ortega: Yes. on the Burn Ranch item. There was two
requests one was for the replacement funding and the second was for expedited
apportionment. I just wanted — I wasn’t sure the record was entirely clear that
the board was approving both, so if I can have confirmation of that, that would be
great. chairperson Ortega: I believe so. So the members who voted on that item. Mr. Speaker: Well, Should we take another vote to make it clear? Mr. Nanjo: As long as there’s no
objections that’s fine. I just want to make sure we have that
confirmation on record. Chairperson Ortega: Yes. Yes, on both items in the staff report. Mr. Nanjo: Thank you. Chairperson Ortega: thank you. Okay. Brian. Mr. LaPask: thank you. Yes. Norwalk-La Mirada, this was a Emergency Repair Program project that was funded
in August 2015 to replace a structurally unsafe portable classroom building.
Because this project required DSA approval, they had 21 months to complete
the project and submit their expenditures to us — to OPSC. During the planning of the project, they were also planning many other projects and master
planning that particular site. When they were about to have their plans approved,
They discovered that — DSA notified them that three of their fire hydrants were
out of code and that would they would need to be fixed. Subsequently, they
figured out that they didn’t have enough water pressure to do that. So they came
to us, requesting an extension to their deadline, knowing that they wouldn’t be
able to meet the 21 month deadline. it appears to us that these were
circumstances out of their control and unpredictable. The SAB has approved two
other appeals for Emergency Repair Program project extensions in the recent
past. The only difference with this one is Norwalk is requesting 18 months
versus 2 months or 8 months and the other ones. So we can’t administrate the
approve an extension, so we’re seeking board direction on that. Chairperson Ortega: Okay. Thank you.
This is another one without any Objection. I do have a speaker card from
Jesse Urquidi. Sorry if I didn’t say that correctly. Mr, Urquidi: Good afternoon, Madame Chair and members
of the board. My name is Jesse Urquidi, board member with Norwalk-La Mirada Unified, and first of all, I greatly
appreciate the staff’s — OPSC staff in assisting the district with this, and I felt it was important to come up here. I’m also an engineer and my professional
life, so I understand a little bit of this, and I really, really appreciate the
support of the extension based upon the background that was put in the the
report for next summer as being a better time to construct and bring the ERP
program back to — bring the water pressure and the size from four to six inches for
the hydrants. So that was one of the medicating factors that happened during
the construction. Chairperson Ortega: Thank you. Mr. Urquidi: thank you very much. Chairperson Ortega: thank you. Any questions? Yes. Assemblymember O’Donnell: I’ll move the item. Chairperson Ortega: Okay. Moved by Mr. O’Donnell. Assemblymember Nazarian: I’ll second. Chairperson Ortega: Second by Mr. Nazarian. Okay. All in favor of approval of
the appeal please say Aye. (Ayes) Chairperson Ortega: Okay. That passes unanimously. Mr. Urquidi: Thank you. Chairperson Ortega: We’ll move to the Career Technical Education Facilities Program regulatory Amendments. Ms. Silverman: Direction your attention on Tab 7 it’s page 173, and we wanted to share with the Board that Proposition 51 had
passed in November and this is the last program that hasn’t been opened up.
So the Career-Tech Program — there’s $500 hundred million dollars it was
authorized by the voters and we wanted to bring forward some options for
funding — open up some funding rounds. We also wanted to address some
performing regulations — regulatory amendments related to some recent
statutory changes. So as far as the recent statutory changes, it was a
repealed section that was enacted in 2015 and they repealed in itself.
We had three successful funding rounds and proposition 1D under the
Career Tech Program. However, we were at a point in time in the program when we
didn’t have funds. So at the time, there was statute enacted that provided the
Board the ability to move some of the funds around, and at that opportunity,
there was new construction/modernization funds that were depleted and
so that provided the board the opportunity to move those program
funds in those areas for that need. As well as we wanted to — part of that
conversation to is we also had residual funds that we were collecting from the
Career Tech Program under the prior authorization and so there was also
residual payments coming back from loans. And we had $2.4 million
dollars in funds as of the middle of June and, although we had residual funds
that we had the ability potentially to move those funds, we are recommending
that the program funds remain in Career Tech as opposed to moving them to
new construction/modernization since the program is pretty much flush. With that,
we’ve been working with Department of Education on establishing some funding
cycles and some timelines with that, and so we worked out the the timelines
associated. We were recommending that the Board opens the first funding round for
$125 million dollars and the details of Department of Education establishing and
accepting applications would be beginning September 27th and that would
wrap up November 29th. And we also have some timelines shared in the item with
Department of Education sharing scores. Those funding applications open up
sometime in the middle of February and also presenting those applications for
Board approval in June. And we also are establishing another round no later than
September 2018 for the same amount of 125 million as well. So with the
conforming regulations as we had proposed, we also wanted to highlight
that there’s also a slight change we’re recommending to the Board related to the
match. So we wanted to make those amendments and I’ll read it on record
because there has been a slight modification. Ms. Jones: We passed it out. Ms. Silverman: We passed it out. Great. So it was an important conversation that we had and it was
elevated by Los Angeles Unified and we appreciate the comments that we received.
So the match requirement as noted will change and we’ll make that modification
if it’s with the Board’s approval. So can I direct your attention — and I think
we all have it in front of us — page 177. So we’re asking the Board to make the
slight modification to regulation 1859.194. Instead of what you see on stamped page 177, we’re asking that the modification to
the language as underlying instead of saying excluding funds, we want to read
on the record, it says: Notwithstanding local funds sources previously
identified in this paragraph, a grant recipient’s local match shall not include
funding from any state or federal sources that provide funding for Career
Tech Education, including but not limited to Career Tech Education Incentive
grant program, the Career Tech Education Pathways Trust Program, and the
Career Tech Education Initiative and the Perkins Federal Career and Technical
Education Grant Program. So that’s the change that we’re proposing today along
with the other changes as listed in stamp page 177 and 178. And we’re
recommending on page 176 of the Board adopt these changes and also allow us to
file on emergency basis and open up the two funding rounds for 125 million. Chairperson Ortega: Okay. Any questions? Any public comment on this item? Assemblymember Chavez: Move approval. Senator Pan: Second. Chairperson Ortega: Moved by Mr. Chavez. Second by Senator Pan. All in favor of approval of all of the
recommendations listed in the staff report as modified by the language read
by Ms. Silverman please say aye. (Ayes) Chairperson Ortega: Okay. That’s approved. And we’ll move to Tab 8 Ms. Silverman: Which is the Workload Reports and Appeals. Chairperson Ortega: Workloads and appeals and we’ll have, as mentioned, a very quick consent only meeting on September 6 to address the
bond sale. Any other member comments or public comment to come? Seeing none — yes, we will — we’re going to call the roll for the items that not everyone was here for.
If you were here, you’re welcome to head out and thank you everyone who attended. So
Ms. Jones. let’s walk through what we — we’ll start with the Minutes I suppose. Ms. Jones: The Minutes. And that would be, Senator Allen. How do you vote on the minutes? Senator Allen: Aye. Ms. Jones: Senator Nguyen? Senator Nguyen: Aye. Ms. Jones: Senator Pan? Senator Pan: Aye. Ms. Jones: Thank you. On the Consent
Calendar. How does Senator Allen vote? Senator Allen: Aye. Ms. Jones: Senator Nguyen. Senator Nguyen: Aye. Ms. Jones: Senator Pan. Senator Pan: Aye. Ms. Jones: And I believe the last one —
and I think you came in the middle of it, Senator Pan — is Burst Ranch. So then I’ll start with Senator Allen. Senator Allen: Aye. Ms. Jones: Senator Nguyen. Senator Nguyen: Aye. Ms. Jones: Senator Pan. Senator Pan: Aye. Ms. Jones: Great. Thank you so much. Chairperson Ortega: Okay. All right. I’m not going to adjourn for a minute until we see if Mr. Nazarian returns, but you’re welcome to — Chairperson Ortega: I think Lisa takes them. Yeah, you can leave it there. Chairperson Ortega: Maybe he is just outside.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *