|
|
0.0 Financial
SECTION 0.0 FINANCIAL0.01 Issues | 0.1.21 Small School District Facilities Issues | | David Walrath, Murdoch, Walrath & Holmes | February 2007 | | | Current small school district exemptions and benefits in the School Facility Program are included in this presentation, along with new legislation and administrative actions.
| | 0.1.20 What Do You Mean I Have No Cash? Cash Flow Planning Techniques. When | | Margaret Brown, San Ramon Valley USD; Stephanie Gonos, Hancock & Gonos, Inc.; Cecile Nunley, Capital Program Management, Inc.; and Margie Rosenstein, Elk Grove Unified School District | February 2007 | | | Business officers of school districts will often ask their facility directors for a draw down schedule for cash flow. This presentation focuses on how to accommodate this need.
| | 0.1.20 Finance 101 | | Julie Arthur, San Jacinto Unified School District; Donald Field, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe; and Dawn Vincent, Stone & Youngberg LLC | February 2007 | | | This presentation discusses three of the more commonly used vehicles for financing school district improvements with tax-exempt funds: general obligation bonds, Mello-Roos/Community Facilities District special tax bonds, and certificates of participation (COP’s).
| | 0.1.19 SFP Project Close Outs and Audits | | Lori Namba, OPSC | October 2006 | | | This presentation includes tips for successful audit planning, as well as reporting requirements, components of the final expenditure audit, and savings usage. It also provides a roster of OPSC fiscal contacts and other resources.
| | 0.1.18 DSA Close-Out – Just When I Thought I Was Out, They Pulled Me Back In | | Gerald Freeman, Division of the State Architect and Len Metcalf, gkkworks | February 2006 | | | Best practices of close-out are provided here.
| | 0.1.17 Where Is The Money | | Lettie Boggs, COLBI Technologies Inc. | February 2005 | | | The various funding types available, the typical uses by school districts and any special requirements for using these funds are all explored here.
| | 0.1.16 Cost and Market Forces | | Karl Schultz, Vanir Construction Management | October 2005 | | | The following issues are presented for market analysis: the U.S. dollar, material shortages, energy costs, international influences, domestic demand, labor, transportation, bonding, and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
| | 0.1.15 Tips on Front-End Documents For A More Successful Project | | Leigh Coop, Vacaville Unified School District | October 2005 | | | In addition to tips on front-end documents, this presentation covers diagrams for the contract award process, the progress payment process, and the final payment process.
| | 0.1.14 Understanding School District Finance | | Dawn Vincent, Stone and Youngberg LLC | February 2004 | | | This presentation describes the basics to each of the four commonly used means for financing school district improvements: general obligation bonds; lease, leaseback or certificates of participation; Mello Roos special tax bonds; and Qualified Zone Academy Bonds (QZAB). | | 0.1.13 Planning for a Successful Audit and the Audit Process | | Noe Valadez, Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) | August 2005 | | | This OPSC presentation discusses proper accounting; fund release authorization; substantial progress; expenditure reporting; OPSC’s audit requirements; expenditure audit (including certifications); noteworthy site information; and available OPSC resources and staff contact information. | | 0.1.12 Preparation for an Audit | | Lettie Boggs, Colbi Technologies, Inc. | December 2003 | 3 pages | | This presentation deals with audit criteria, correspondence, account coding and networking. | | 0.1.11 School District's Perspective: Stewardship of Public Money and Preparing for the Audit | | Dan Lovinger, Lake Elsinore Unified School District | December 2003 | 2 pages | | This presentation outlines the key elements of preparation for an audit and the requirements of a well defined project. | | 0.1.10 Project Close-Out and State Audit | | Noe’ Valadez and Lien Hoang, Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) | May 2004 | | | This presentation explains the School FAcility Program Audit Process with a specific focus on what districts can expect. Topics covered included: fund release requirements, progress reporting, the expenditure audit process, reporting requirements and audit exceptions.
| | 0.1.09 Understanding What’s in A Pupil Grant | | Lisa Constancio, Office of Public School Construction (OPSC), and Tom Rizzuti, Anaheim City School District | August 2005 | | | This presentation includes information about categorizing and identifying project costs and getting the maximum State project dollars and provides examples of what should be included in a basic grant. | | 0.1.08 Breaking Ground | | The Office of Public School Construction (OPSC)/Division of the State Architect (DSA) Connection to California School Districts | Fall 2003 | | | This publication includes articles with valuable information on understanding and planning a new construction budget. | | 0.1.07 Budget Basics | | Lettie Boggs, Colbi Technologies, Inc. | August 2005 | | | This presentation outlines the basic budget categories for new construction projects, such as site acquisition, planning and design, construction testing, inspection, furniture and equipment, and contingency. | | 0.1.06 Understanding What’s In A Pupil Grant | | Ted Rozzi, Corona-Norco Unified School District | September 2003 | 6 pages | | This presentation features the project cost factors to be considered when budgeting new construction and modernization projects, including site selection, site and plan development, and construction. | | 0.1.05 Use of District Resources in Bond Elections | | Stephen L. Hartsell, School and College Legal Services | August 2002 | CASH Register Article, 1 page | | This presents a current review of the legal requirements that school board members and school districts employees need to be aware of when informing the public about state and local school bond elections. | | 0.1.04 Legal Issues in Planning for Bond Elections | | Jerome M. Behrens, Esq., Lozano Smith | February 2000 | 86 pages | | The legal issues suggested when planning for a bond election include campaign do’s and don’ts, ballot issues, sample ballot materials, FPPC information and campaign disclosure.
C.A.S.H. office reference copy - Contact Shannon Mahoney at sfife@m-w-h.com. Be sure to include item number for quick delivery. | | 0.1.03 Finance 101: Introduction to School Facility Finance | | Dawn Vincent, Stone and Youngberg, LLC; Rory Levingston,William S. Hart Un. HSD; Donald Field, Orrick, Herrington LLP | February 2006 | | | The more common vehicles used for financing school district improvements are outlined here including the fundamentals of the financing process from beginning to end.
| | 0.1.02 A New Blueprint for California School Facility Finance | | Marianne O’Malley, Chris Guyer, and Erik Skinner, Office of the Legislative Analyst | 2001 | 24 pages | | The Office of the Legislative Analyst recently issued the above report, which proposes a major change in the way the state assists school districts in building schools. | | 0.1.01 To Build a Better School | | Little Hoover Commission | February 2000 | 88 pages | | This report contains a series of findings and recommendations intended to improve the quality of school construction in California. It includes references to financial issues. | | 0.1.00 School Facility Program – Statistical and Fiscal Data | | Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) | December 16, 1998 through September 28, 2005 | | | The information presented provides historical data as well as applications awaiting funding.
|
0.02 Cost Containment | 0.2.14 The Times They Are a Changing – Facilities Budget Planning in Volatile Economic Times | | Leigh Coop, Vacaville Unified School District; Jay Davison, Capital Program Management, Inc.; and Scott Koppel, Koppel & Gruber Public Finance | February 2007 | | | This presentation offers budget planning techniques that will aid in coping with the uncertainty of a volatile construction market.
| | 0.2.13 Up, Up and Away!!! Dealing With Cost Escalations in School Construction | | Julie Arthur, San Jacinto USD; Brian Cahill, Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc.; Julius Conway, Fontana USD; Len Metcalf, Nadel Architects, Inc.; and Ed Mierau, Neff Construction, Inc. | February 2007 | | | World and national events impact school construction dollars. Material supplies and their availability affect your construction budget. This presentation focuses on positive ways to lessen these impacts and minimize availability problems from the district, architect, and construction industry perspectives.
| | 0.2.12 Locally Funded Requirements Imposed on California’s School Facility Program After 1988 | | Tim Gage, Blue Sky Consulting Group | May 2006 | | | This presentation describes a study conducted by Blue Sky Consulting Group “to evaluate changes in school facilities costs due to requirements imposed since implementation of the School Facility Program.”
The complete study can be viewed on the C.A.S.H. website in the June 26, 2006 Latest News item - SFP Study Completed.
| | 0.2.11 Piggyback Contracts – What Does The Attorney General’s Opinion Really Mean? | | Patrick A. Gunn, Esq., Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud, and Romo | February 2006 | | | This paper provides information on what school districts should be doing with current and future piggyback contracts.
| | 0.2.10 LEA Case Study: Best Practices | | Denise Wakefield, Tracy Unified School District | June 2005 | | | This presentation discusses the selection of a modular manufacturer, with emphasis on type of buildings, the configuration required, and how to purchase a modular building via a piggyback contract.
| | 0.2.09 LEA Case Study: Best Practices | | Rosalie Aja and Don Lussier, Corona-Norco Unified School District | June 2005 | | | This presentation features a typical piggyback procurement case study, including types of commodities, authority and district process. | | 0.2.08 Solutions to the High Bid Environment: Project Revision | | Michael Perez, San Bernardino City School District, and Chris Taylor, HMC Architects | July 2004 | 7 pages | | This presentation includes 10 strategies for bidding, such as aggressive bid solicitations, shortening bid life and ensuring prompt payment, and 8 strategies for cost-effective, quality bid documents, such as constructability reviews and review of district standards.
| | 0.2.07 How to Initiate and Manage An OCIP Program: Roles and Responsibilities of a Third Party Administrator | | Sharlene Horn, Keenan and Associates | June 2004 | 8 pages | | The history and legal basis of an owner controlled insurance program (OCIP) are presented here along with broker/document selection and management of the program.
| | 0.2.06 Owner Controlled Insurance Programs | | Eric R. Dill, San Dieguito Union High School District | May 2004 | CASH Register Article | | This article outlines the potential benefits and risks of owner controlled insurance programs for school district construction projects.
| | 0.2.05 Tips for Containing Costs on School Construction Projects | | Rich Henry, McCarthy Building Company | April 2003 | CASH Register Article | | This article outlines how to contain costs by selecting a building team and identifying project scope and stakeholders, educational goals, prequalification of bidders, coordinator, lines of authority, control of change orders and timely payments.
| | 0.2.04 Cost Containment Joint Use Projects/Reuse of Plans | | Dave Doomey, Assistant Superintendent, Capistrano Unified School District, and Charlene Yarnall, PJHM Architects Southwest | | 11 Pages | | This presentation illustrates how joint-use projects and reuse of plans can provide significant cost containment and savings and features a two-story classroom built at $125 per square foot. | | 0.2.03 Cost Containment for California Public Schools Case Study: Jefferson K-8 School, Paramount Unified School District | | McCarthy Building Companies and LPA | October 2000 | 8 pages | | This presentation describes the building of an 800-student MTYRE school on 3.7 acres in seven months at $134 per square foot vs. state grant of $160 per square foot. | | 0.2.02 Selected Cost Containment Features | | Michael Rainforth, Rainforth Grau Architects | October 2000 | | | This selected sampling of cost containment features for a hardship project includes architectural, structural, plumbing, HVAC, electrical, civil and landscape topics. | | 0.2.01 Cost Containment Cookbook for Public School Construction | | Coalition for Adequate School Housing (C.A.S.H.) | January 2000 | 26 pages | | This document is intended to be a “cookbook” of elements which collectively influence the cost containment of school construction projects. It is not intended to be a treatise on the entire school construction process nor to establish responsibilities between various members of the construction delivery team. |
0.03 Bond Elections | 0.3.18 Bond Counsel Issues | | Marilyn Cleveland and Samuel Santana, Miller Brown & Dannis | September 2006 | | | Bond counsel issues are presented in a question and answer format which touches on Proposition 39 and AB 3063, the bond sale process, and restrictions.
| | 0.3.17 Case Study: Folsom-Cordova Unified School District | | Debbie Bettencourt and Matt Washburn, Folsom-Cordova USD; Bruce Kerns, Stone & Youngberg, LLC; Bryan DeBlonk, Capital Campaigns | September 2006 | | | This comprehensive presentation covers the history of Folsom-Cordova USD bond elections, future bond elections, factors critical to success, oversight committees, operations guidelines, sale of bonds, administration of bond proceeds, factors affecting tax rates, and facilities improvement districts.
| | 0.3.16 Overview of the Basics | | Jeff Baratta, UBS Securities, LLC and John Baracy, RBC Capital Markets | September 2006 | | | Master plan financing options are presented here with an emphasis on the role of investment bankers.
| | 0.3.15 The Developer’s Perspective | | Leon C. Swails, Lewis Operating Corp. | August 2006 | | | Knowing the developer, early involvement, advantages of developer built schools, and how to maximize developer mitigation fees are presented from the perspective of the developer.
| | 0.3.14 Case Study On How To Conduct A Successful Local Bond Election | | Bill McGuire, Clovis Unified School District | April 2005 | 12 pages | | The components of bond election strategy are presented here with emphasis on campaign funding, media relations, bond election steering committee and school site committees.
| | 0.3.13 Alternatives to Developer Fees | | Addison Covert, Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard | August 2006 | | | The how, when and why a Mello Roos assessment district provides an option in conjunction with school facilities improvement districts.
| | 0.3.12 The Role of the Bond Counsel/Financial Advisor | | Jeff Baratta, UBS Financial Services, Inc. | April 2005 | 3 pages | | This presentation defines the pre- and post-election role of the bond counsel and investment banker.
| | 0.3.11 What You Need to Know about Local Bond Elections | | Jerry Behrens and Tom Gauthier, Lozano Smith LLP | April 2005 | 32 pages | | Timetables and requirements for Proposition 39 General Obligation Bonds are defined here, including oversight committee for 66 2/3 general obligation bonds, 2005 parcel tax election, creation of school facilities improvement district and creation of a community facilities (Mello-Roos) district.
| | 0.3.10 Finance 101: Introduction to School Facility Finance | | Dawn Vincent, Stone and Youngberg LLC | February 2005 | 16 pages | | This is an introduction to the more frequently used vehicles for financing school district improvements. It includes general obligation bonds, lease-leaseback or certificates of participation, and Mello Roos special tax bonds.
| | 0.3.09 Getting Sound Financial Advice That Will Benefit Your School Community | | Michael Bush, Kelling Northcross Nobriga | February 2004 | 6 pages | | A review of the approaches that can be taken to ensure completion of projects while keeping financing costs low and maximizing the proceeds used for facilities is presented here. | | 0.3.08 SDCTA School Bond Support Criteria | | Geoff Patnoe, San Diego County Taxpayers Association | July 2002 | 3 pages | | This paper lists the criteria that has been developed for a school district to earn the endorsement of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association. | | 0.3.07 You’ve Passed Your Bond, Now What | | Jay Davison, Capital Program Management Inc. | February 2002 | 10 pages | | This presentation includes Capital Program Management's sequence of work in a bond implementation plan. The 15-task sequence includes 22 questions that should be asked about a school site for modernization/renovation. | | 0.3.06 Elements of a Successful Bond Election | | Roger Oraze, Ed.D, Clovis Unified School District | September 2001 | 5 pages | | This presentation outlines the elements of a successful bond election, including pre-bond measure organization, the bond campaign, post election and a district election brochure. | | 0.3.05 Neighborhood School Overcrowding and Repair Measure | | Capistrano Unified School District | | | | The Capistrano Unified School District presents an approach to an "SFID" bond election to help alleviate overcrowding and address repair needs. | | 0.3.04 140 Days to Bond | | Elk Grove Unified School District | March 1998 | 22 pages | | A step-by-step guide to Elk Grove Unified School District’s successful bond election. It includes planning, activities, and many other helpful ideas. | | 0.3.03 Bond Basic for Beginners | | Dawn Vincent, Stone & Youngberg LLC | February 2000 | 26 pages | | This presentation deals with financing techniques for school districts and provides a case study of certificates of participation for the Fullerton Elementary School District. | | 0.3.02 School District Bond Elections | | Paul Holmes, Murdoch Walrath & Holmes | March 2004 | | | This summary of school district bond elections includes type of election, date, % of yes votes, vote requirement, amount, whether the bond passed ir failed, annual bond payment, and tax rate increase. | | 0.3.01 How to Determine Your Election Date | | Jeremy Thorn, School Political Services | | 1 page | | One of the most common errors in planning school bond elections is choosing an election date without doing the proper research to determine whether or not the bond measure has a chance of winning. The district’s need for the money should never override the community’s willingness to support the bond measure. This article includes five steps to ensure your bond measure’s success. |
0.04 Proposition 39 | 0.4.17 Case Study: Fontana Unified School District | | Yvonne Medina, Fontana USD | September 2006 | | | This case study covers some of the factors needed for bond passage such as a timeline, a district team, consultants, an opinion poll, project issues, and lessons learned. Also included are bylaws for a Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee.
| | 0.4.16 Construction Program Reporting and Communications | | Bill Savidge, West Contra Costa Unified School District | October 2005 | | | The importance of reporting and communicating are emphasized here. Included are bond oversight committee reporting, construction contract status, program management, and budget summaries.
| | 0.4.15 Case Study On Successful, Innovative Charter/ School District Agreements | | Doug Barge, Mamie Starr, Lodi USD; Bruce Kerns, Stone & Youngberg; Gloria Lee, Aspire Public Schools | April 2005 | 13 pages | | Research team functions, facilities debt financing, operational issues, and staff recommendations are discussed here.
| | 0.4.14 Tools for Funding Charter Facilities | | Ernest Silva, Murdoch, Walrath & Holmes | September 2002 | 7 pages | | This presentation describes a variety of mechanisms for funding charter facilities, including SB 740 lease funds, the AB 16 School Facility Program, and the AB 14 Charter School Facilities Account. | | 0.4.13 Bond Oversight Committees: One Very Positive Experience | | Ken Hall, School Services of California, Inc. | August 2002 | FISCAL REPORT, Copyright 2002 School Services of California Volume 22, No. 16, 2 pages | | This is a brief article on how the San Juan Unified School District’s Bond Oversight Committees are organized for success with strong community acceptance. | | 0.4.12 Citizens’ Oversight Committee – Operational Guidelines | | Paul Disario, San Juan Unified School District | September 2002 | 3 pages | | These operational guidelines are to ensure that funds are used only on school improvement. | | 0.4.11 AB 14 – Funding For District-Sponsored Charter Schools | | Ernest Silva, Murdoch, Walrath, and Holmes | October 10, 2002 | 1 page | | This C.A.S.H. document describes eligibility criteria and funding formulas. | | 0.4.10 Alternatives For Financing Charter School Facilities | | Jeffrey Baratta, Stone and Youngberg LLC; Mike Vail, Vista Unified School District; Ernest Silva, Murdoch Walrath and Holmes | February 2002 | 12 Pages | | Proposition 39 and charter schools are analyzed for information on how a district can provide reasonably equivalent school facilities to in-district students of charter schools. | | 0.4.09 Comparison of Proposition 39 and Original Bond Law | | Robert E. Anslow, Bowie, Arneson, Wiles and Giannone | September 2001 | 6 pages | | Comparison of Proposition 39 and Original Bond Law | | 0.4.08 Citizens' Oversight Committees, Requirements and Guidelines | | Robert E. Anslow, Bowie, Arneson, Wiles and Giannone | September 2001 | 9 pages | | Assembly Bill 1980 provided additional requirements relative to school district general obligation bond elections conducted pursuant to Proposition 39. One of the new requirements is establishing and appointing members to a Citizens Oversight Committee. This presentation discusses the structure and function of this committee. | | 0.4.07 Proposition 39 Bond Election Dates 2002 and Related Deadlines | | Robert E. Anslow, Bowie, Arneson, Wiles and Giannone | September 2001 | 1 page | | Proposition 39 Bond Election Dates 2002 and Related Deadlines | | 0.4.06 General Obligation Bonds and Proposition 39 | | Robert E. Anslow, Bowie, Arneson, Wiles and Giannone | September 2001 | 9 pages | | This paper and its attachments explore the nuances of Proposition 30 and the companion legislation, Assembly Bills 1908 and 2659, with particular emphasis on election dates, area for elections and the Accountability Requirements. | | 0.4.05 Proposition 39 Best Practices Handbook | | C.A.S.H. Legal Advisory Committee | February 2001 | | | Members of the Legal Advisory Committee for the Coalition for Adequate School Housing (C.A.S.H.) have prepared this handbook to guide school district personnel through the decisions of whether and how to hold a Proposition 39 bond election.
C.A.S.H. office reference copy - Contact Cheryl MacElvie at cmackelvie@m-w-h.com. | | 0.4.04 Proposition 39 - Questions and Answers | | Orrick, Harrington and Sutcliffe | November 2001 | | | This bulletin answers the most important questions school districts are asking. | | 0.4.03 Proposition 39, Workshop Resource Manual | | California’s Coalition for Adequate School Housing (C.A.S.H.), Community College Facility Coalition (CCFC) and Small School Districts’ Association (SSDA) | January 2001 | | | “The resource manual is a current collection of materials that begins a dialogue between the authors and the C.A.S.H. Legal Advisory Committee to develop a C.A.S.H. Proposition 39 Best Practices Handbook. That Handbook is intended to reflect the consensus on current best practices for implementing Proposition 39.”
C.A.S.H. office reference copy - Contact Shannon Mahoney at sfife@m-w-h.com. Be sure to include item number for quick delivery. | | 0.4.02 Comparison of Proposition 39 and Current Law School District General Obligation Bonds | | Bruce Kerns and Jeff Baratta, Stone and Youngberg LLC | November 2000 | 4 pages | | This entry compares characteristics such as affirmative votes, eligible facilities, dates, tax rates, bonds, and accountability requirements. | | 0.4.01 Proposition 39, Alternative General Obligation Bond Authorization Procedures, Panacea or Pandora's Box? | | Warren B. Diven and Christina L. Dyer, Best, Best and Krieger | November 2000 | 14 pages | | This alternative procedure authorizes the approval of a proposition to authorize the issuance of general obligation bonds by the affirmative vote of 55% of the voters of a school district voting on such proposition. This lower voter approval authorization comes with "strings attached" which include mandated requirements for financial accountability and taxpayer oversight. |
0.05 Partnerships | 0.5.07 Community Partnerships in The Planning Process | | Tom Duffy, Murdoch, Walrath & Holmes | August 2004 | 11 pages | | This presentation explores the joint-use concept, including the goals and objectives of the partnership; examples of existing, planned, and failed joint-use projects and services; how to promote joint-use efforts; potential obstacles; recommendations for getting started; funding, application deadlines and fund releases; and changes to the program made by SB 15.
| | 0.5.06 Joint-Use | | Tom Duffy, Murdoch, Walrath and Holmes | March 2004 | 3 pages | | Remaining bond funds are covered here as well as Proposition 55 funds and program changes under SB 15. | | 0.5.05 Joint Use Program – SB 1795 Lease-Purchase | | California Department of Education | May 2001 | 2 pages | | This is a link to the SB 1795 Joint-Use Projects Eligible Square Footage Form, which LEA’s must include with plan submissions to the California Department of Education when applying for joint-use funds through SB 1795.
| | 0.5.04 Cities, Counties and Schools Working Together | | David Wheaton, CCS Partnership | June 2001 | 3 pages | | To improve the conditions of California’s children, families, and communities through joint efforts and more efficient use of public resources by cities, counties and schools, the CCS Partnership has developed a work plan for 2000 that is shared in this document. | | 0.5.03 Shared Use Library Project, Earl Warren Middle School | | Eric J. Hall, San Dieguito Union High School District | June, 2001 | 10 pages | | The San Dieguito Union High School District demonstrates how the District met the challenge of bringing equity to an older school with new District facilities. This presentation gives the advantages and disadvantages of the process. | | 0.5.02 Innovative Approaches to Financing School Construction: The Feasibility of “Public-Public” Partnership | | Janet Mueller, Miller Brown & Dannis; William Kadi, Jones Hall; Mike White, Livermore Valley Jt. USD; and Phil White, Kelling Northcross and Nobriga | February 2000 | 10 pages | | This presentation examines the feasibility of financing school construction with public-public partnerships using a case study from the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District. The district's partnership with the City of Livermore and the Livermore Area Park and Recreation District provides school facilities, a city library, and a youth community center through the school district’s general obligation bond. | | 0.5.01 Partnerships Between Public Schools and Private Developers | | Joint Legislative Audit Committee | December 1998 | 145 pages | | In recent years, school districts throughout California have faced a scarcity of resources necessary to effectively deliver quality educational programs to the students that they serve. In order to generate discretionary revenues and defray locally funded school construction costs, some school districts have engaged in "joint venture" partnerships with the private sector to develop school district-owned properties. This publication investigates this process.
C.A.S.H. office reference copy - Contact Shannon Mahoney at sfife@m-w-h.com. Be sure to include item number for quick delivery. |
0.06 School/Developer Fees | 0.6.10 How To Prepare A School Facilities Needs Assessment | | Dick Recht, Schoolhouse Services | August 2006 | | | Guidelines are presented for Fee Justification Documents, School Facilities Needs Analysis, and Fee Justification Reports.
| | 0.6.09 What Impact Fees Must A School District Pay? | | Harold Freiman and Lauri LaFoe, Lozano Smith | August 2006 | | | This provides a complete analysis of the City of Marina v. California State University including the public entity’s impaction on the local environment.
| | 0.6.08 Developer Do’s and Don’t and Recent Cases | | Harold Frieman and Lauri LaFoe, Lozano Smith | August 2006 | | | Accounting requirements, justification studies, fee usage, collections and fee-splitting, needs analysis, and charter school implications are discussed here. Several recent court cases are included as well as alternatives to developer fees.
| | 0.6.07 Statutory Requirements and Legal Issues Affecting Developers Fees | | Wendy H. Wiles, Bowie Arneson Wiles and Giannone | August 2006 | | | The statutory requirements included in this presentation include level 1 school fees, fee justification study, alternative fees, needs analysis, collection of fees, fee usage, annual and five year reports, and credits and refunds.
| | 0.6.06 Developer Fees Update | | Alex Bowie and Sally Robinson, Bowie Arneson Wiles & Giannone | May 2002 | 28 pages | | This presentation is a general update highlighting a few significant developments and recent changes regarding the imposition, calculation, and/or justification of statutory Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3 Fees (“School Fees”) that school districts are authorized to collect.
| | 0.6.05 Role of School Facilities Needs Analysis When Level 3 Becomes a Possibility | | Rob Corley, Consultant | June 2001 | 5 pages | | The Government Code requires the State Allocation Board to notify the California Legislature when there is a lack of funds available for new school facility construction. Once the notification occurs, a school district may increase their developer fees up to Level 3 by as much as twice the current Level 2 fee. This presentation discusses the role of the school facilities needs analysis when Level 3 fees become a possibility. | | 0.6.04 School Facilities Needs Analysis Under SB 50 – Level II Fees | | Michael Paoli and Associates | May 2001 | 11 pages | | Senate Bill 50 allows school districts to charge a fee on new residential construction as an alternative to the traditional Level 1 residential developer fee. The alternative fees are referred to as Level 2 and Level 3 fees and may exceed the Level 1 fee up to an amount justified through the preparation of a “school facilities needs analysis.” This study deals with the process. | | 0.6.03 Developer Fees in The New Millennium | | Rob Corley, Consultant | March 2001 | 6 pages | | This presentation provides observations from the first two years of Level 2/Level 3 fee studies, including pitfalls to be avoided, process issues, and preparing the SFNA. | | 0.6.02 Developer Fees in The New Millennium | | Alex Bowie and Julia Rice, Bowie Arneson Wiles and Giannone | March 2001 | | | This summary includes observations from the initial adoption of Alternative School Facility Fees by school districts in 2000. The summary "highlights issues which have been raised during a public review period at a public hearing, or which may create vulnerability for purposes of litigation." These issues include: recalculation of existing school building capacity; exclusion of mitigated dwelling units; land and site development costs; development projects; future commercial fees, state funding, and bond proceeds; and proposals for community facilities districts.
| | 0.6.01 Senate Bill 50 and School Facility Fees | | C.A.S.H.’s Legal Advisory Committee | February 1999 | 16 pages | | The purpose of this report is to discuss the limitations imposed by SB 50 on the local development review process and the new developer fee rules that are now in place following the approval of Proposition 1A. |
0.07 Federal Funds | 0.7.07 E-Rate | | Linda Smith, California School Management Group | April 2006 | | | This presentation defines E-Rate and provides information about funding, eligibility, building an e-rate team, and creating a project timeline. | | 0.7.06 QZAB Case Study | | Peggy Flynn-Williams, Santa Ana USD | April 2006 | | | This presentation defines a Qualified Zone Academy Bond (QZAB) and its purpose, outlines the criteria for eligibility and requirements of the porgram, and provides a case study from Santa Ana Unified School District.
| | 0.7.05 Dollars from D.C.: What's New in Federal Funding | | Jeff Baratta, Stone and Youngberg, LLC | February 2005 | 10 pages | | As the title indicates, this presentation includes information about changes in federal funding for school facilities such as QZABs and charter school grants.
| | 0.7.04 Local Hazard Mitigation Plans | | Ian Padilla, C.A.S.H. | July 2004 | CASH Register Article | | This article provides a brief summary of the amended Robert T. Stafford Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000), including recommended actions and contact information.
| | 0.7.03 Federal Renovation Program Regulations | | Emily Stone, School Facility Consultants | February 2002 | 13 pages | | The Federal Renovation Program Regulations will provide grant funds for emergency renovation and/or repair of facilities for Local Education Agencies. Visit the OPSC website at www.opsc.dgs.ca.gov to view the regulations, etc. | | 0.7.02 “What Is Cal-Fed?” | | Cal-Fed School Infrastructure Coalition | March 2001 | | | Cal-Fed is a coalition of California school districts and business groups lobbying for federal assistance for school construction. Formed in 1997, Cal-Fed hired a highly regarded Washington DC lobbying firm, Federal Management Strategies, for representation. For more information contact David Walrath at dwalrath@m-w-h.com. | | 0.7.01 Fixing Our Schools Now! Qualified Zone Academy Bonds: A New Approach to Financing Renovation and Repair | | U.S. Department of Education | April 2000 | 76 pages | | This report contains detailed information about QZABs, including technical information, frequently asked questions, state contacts, and examples of how school districts are using the QZAB program to finance renovation and repair of school facilities. |
0.08 Other Sources | 0.8.37 SB 1415: Use of Site Sale Proceeds | | December 2006 | Ian Padilla, Murdoch, Walrath and Holmes | | | This presentation deals with the changes in the use of proceeds from the sale of school district property.
| | 0.8.36 AB 607 Williams ERP | | Ian Padilla, Murdoch, Walrath and Holmes | December 2006 | | | The changes to emergency repair funding (ERP) are listed here.
| | 0.8.35 Asset Management | | Henry Petino, Total School Solutions; Ty Williams, San Jose Unified School District; and Bill Savidge, West Contra Costa Unified School District | October 2006 | | | This presentation features California demographic statistics (statewide, Contra Costa County, and West Contra Costa Unified School District), the components of an asset management plan, and a case study on “school consolidation” from the San Jose Unified School District.
| | 0.8.34 How Did We Get Here and Where Are We Going? | | Masha Lutsuk, Office of Public School Construction (OPSC), and Brooks Allen, ACLU Foundation of Southern California | July 2006 | | | The OPSC section of this presentation provides the status of ERP funding; examples of emergency facilities needs; OPSC workload, process improvements, and outreach; the application filing period; forthcoming program changes; and tips for a complete application. The ACLU section of the presentation provides an overview and history of ERP funding; forthcoming changes as outlined in AB 607 (Goldberg); and Williams facilities standards and requirements.
| | 0.8.33 Maximizing the Options: Making it Work | | Lettie Boggs, Colbi Technologies | July 2006 | | | Emphasized here are the situations and projects that qualify for the State Emergency Repair Program and sources of state and local funding available to address those situations and projects.
| | 0.8.32 What Are the COE’s Finding? | | Bob Nicholson, San Diego County Office of Education | July 2006 | | | This presentation describes the challenges experienced by the San Diego County Office of Education in the Emergency Repair Program funding process, including confusion about the program requirements. The presentation also provides details about the application and funding processes.
| | 0.8.31 The LEA Experience | | Tom Rayburn, Capistrano Unified School District | July 2006 | | | This presentation describes Capistrano Unified School District’s experience with securing ERP money. Forms, costs, and tips are included.
| | 0.8.30 Legal Issues In Asset Management | | Marilyn Cleveland, Miller Brown & Dannis | April 2006 | | | Topics covered in this presentation include school closure; reasons for property disposition; surplus property disposal issues, including the responsibilities of the 7-11 committee, public offerings, and public bidding; other options for property; and use of proceeds. | | 0.8.29 LEA Case Study | | John Palmer, San Juan USD | April 2006 | | | An asset management plan for the San Juan Unified School District is presented here that reflects significant declining enrollment.
| | 0.8.28 Managing Your Assets | | Lori Raineri, Government Financial Strategies; Dan Santo, California Financial Services | April 2006 | | | The who, what, when, where, why and how to develop an asset management plan are presented here.
| | 0.8.27 The Modular Manufacturers’ Perspective | | Bill Meehleis, Meehleis Modular Buildings, Inc. | March 2006 | | | Included in this report are “piggyback” contracts, conditions, and checklists as developed by the School Facilities Manufacturers' Association.
| | 0.8.26 Working Better and Smarter: You and Your Fiscal Department | | Cecile Nunley, Capital Program Management, Inc. and Herb Calderon, Victor Valley Un. HSD | February 2006 | | | This presentation focuses on the needs of a districts's fiscal service and facility departments and how both can work together to achieve their individual goals for state and other reporting.
| | 0.8.25 Use Of Solar Energy To Reduce Electrical Costs | | Russel Watson, Sprotte & Watson Architecture & Planning; Sophie Atkins; Vijay Israni, 3rd Rock Systems & Technologies, Inc.; Ken Fine, Lemon Grove Elem. SD | February 2006 | | | This team of solar experts discusses ways to produce up to 95% of your site’s electrical needs.
| | 0.8.24 State and Other Funding Programs for High Performance Schools | | Elizabeth Shirakh and Claudia Orlando, California Energy Commission | July 2005 | | | This presentation defines some of the programs available from the Energy Commission along with the application process and resources for additional information.
| | 0.8.23 Monetary Resources for K-12 Sustainable School and Public Building Construction in California | | Division of the State Architect | July 2005 | | | This matrix is a compilation of financial resources for school districts regarding energy, water, materials efficiency, siting, green building, landscaping, transportation, and environmental education. | | 0.8.22 DSA Energy Plan Review | | John Baca, Division of the State Architect (DSA) | July 2005 | | | This presentation covers the AB 16 Energy Plan Review, including the process for grant allowance, a checklist review of plans and compliance forms, and resources for compliance regulations. | | 0.8.21 Vacaville USD: A Case Study On Public Relations | | Leigh A. Coop, Vacaville Unified School District | May 2005 | 14 pages | | This presentation explores the Vacaville USD's 2003 consolidation plan, which emphasizes the importance of the public relations planning process.
| | 0.8.20 Surplus Real Property Issues | | Wendy Wiles, Bowie Arneson Wiles & Giannone | May 2005 | 14 pages | | This presentation focuses on legal issues concerning the potential sale or lease of surplus real property, including the Naylor Act and the structure of a 7/11 committee.
| | 0.8.19 Legal Issues | | Douglas Yeoman, Parker and Covert LLP | May 2005 | 32 pages | | This presentation explores the number of methods by which districts may raise revenue and includes legal compliance requirements for each method, such as the Naylor Act, CEQA, bidding, joint occupancy, joint use, community recreation, the Civic Center Act, sale of property and State Board of Education waivers.
| | 0.8.18 How to Avoid Pain in the Asset Management Process | | Stephen L. Hartsell, Associate General Counsel, School and College Legal Services of California | February 2006 | | | This brief presentation covers city and county zoning requirements, CEQA, and use of proceeds from the sale of property.
| | 0.8.17 2005 Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards Changes Affecting New Construction and Modernization | | Don Kazama, California Energy Commission | September 2004 | 10 pages | | Propositions 47 and 55 provide additional funding available from OPSC for early compliance. The program is based upon the Bright Schools Program and the Collaborative for High Performing Schools (CHPS).
| | 0.8.16 Review of the Williams Lawsuit | | Lori Morgan, State Allocation Board (SAB)/Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) and Duwayne Brooks, Murdoch Walrath & Holmes | September 2004 | 11 pages | | This presentation describes elements of the legislation enacted to implement the Williams settlement, including:
• SB 6, which established the School Facilities Needs Assessment Grant Program and the School Facilities Emergency Repair Account;
• SB 550, which, among other provisions, requires: (1) county superintendents to annually review the condition of decile 1, 2, and 3 schools; (2) schools to develop a School Facilities Inspection System as a condition of receiving new construction or modernization funds; (3) OPSC to develop an interim evaluation instrument for determining "good repair" and subsequently develop a State standard for "good repair"; (4) schools to include the condition of facilities in their School Accountability Report Card; (5) school districts to use the uniform complaint process for complaints regarding emergency or urgent facilities problems;
• AB 1550, which provides for elimination of Concept 6 no later than July 1, 2012. | | 0.8.15 Economic Downturn and Managing with Less | | Denise Wakefield, Antioch USD; Robert Barna, Citicorp Global Markets; Bill Proctor, Kitchell | February 2004 | 10 pages | | Ideas presented here include dealing with the budgetary effects of closing schools, eliminating class size reduction, consolidating sites, and leasing district facilities. | | 0.8.14 Lease, Lease-Back Projects – What Is It? $90 M Later and It’s Time for a Reality Check | | Thomas Clark, San Marcos Unified School District | February 2004 | 17 pages | | This presentation is a nuts-and-bolts account of lessons learned and ways to improve the process while maintaining a win-win relationship with the team members.
| | 0.8.13 Critically Overcrowded Schools (COS) | | Tom Duffy, Murdoch Walrath and Holmes | March 2004 | 2 pages | | The funding available from Proposition 47 and Proposition 55 is outlined here along with program requirements. | | 0.8.12 Energy Program | | Ian Padilla, Murdoch, Walrath and Holmes | March 2004 | 4 pages | | This presentation includes AB16 adjustments, funding, program process, DSA requirements, and OPSC proposed adjustments. | | 0.8.11 Energy Efficiency Financing Program | | California Energy Commission (CEC) | | Link to CEC website | | The California Energy Commission (CEC)'s Energy Efficiency Financing Program provides financing for schools, hospitals and local governments through low-interest loans for feasibility studies and the installation of energy-saving measures. For more information, visit the CEC's website at http://www.energy.ca.gov/efficiency/financing/. | | 0.8.10 Out of Eligibility But Have Construction Needs | | Michael Bush, Kelling, Northcross & Nobriga; Sandra Lee Lemmons, Pleasanton USD; Jim O’Connor, Castro Valley USD; Dave Ostermann, Calexico USD; and Denise Wakefield, Brentwood Elem. SD | February 2003 | 27 pages | | This presentation describes strategies for overcoming the funding challenge, including community awareness. Various funding options are also presented including-but not limited to-developer-built schools and joint projects with the city. | | 0.8.09 A Team Approach: School District/Developer Creative Solution in Financing and Building Schools | | Paul Anderson, Chino Valley USD; Dave Doomey, Capistrano USD; Gary Gibbs, Gibbs & Assoicates; Peggy Green, Makr Ues Un. Elem. SD; Jeannette Justus, JCJ Associates; and Dan Kelly, Rancho Mission Viejo | February 2003 | 25 pages | | This presentation addresses topics such as cost savings, marketing, financial certainty, entitlements, and good relationships and presents three case studies as examples of "creative school facility planning in an uncertain environment." | | 0.8.08 Energy Funding and Assistance Available for Central Valley School Districts | | January 2003 | 3 pages | | This article discusses the School Energy Efficiency (SEE) Program , a $4.5 million dollar program designed to develop energy education and facility improvement for 55 Central Valley school districts. | | 0.8.07 Energy Accounting Software | | John Palmer, San Juan Unified School District | October 2001 | 12 pages | | This presentation describes energy saving strategies that are based upon the San Juan Unified School District energy accounting software. | | 0.8.06 Certificates of Participation and Lease Revenue Bonds | | Jim Roth, Salomon Smith Barney | April 2001 | 5 pages | | When State or local bond money is not available, certificates of participation and lease revenue bonds may be your solution to finance the new school or modernize the old school. | | 0.8.05 Program Opportunity Notice High Performance School Grant | | California Energy Commission (CEC) | June 2001 | | | The California Energy Commission announced the availability of two competitive grants, each up to $250,000. | | 0.8.04 Savings By Design | | Pacific Gas and Electric Company | March 2001 | Link to PG&E website | | Under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission, Energy Design Resources is a program to develop and disseminate design tools and resources that help elevate energy efficiency in new schools to a higher priority. All resources are available for download at the Energy Design Resources website. | | 0.8.03 Alternative Financing for Financial Hardship Districts, Bridging the Gap | | Mark Epstein, California Financial Services | April 2001 | 6 pages | | This presentation outlines the advantages and disadvantages of bridge financing, including the political, financial, and program risks. | | 0.8.02 What Is Debt Financing? | | Lettie Boggs, Anaheim City School District, and Dawn Vincent, Stone & Youngberg LLC | March 2001 | 16 pages | | This presentation discusses mechanisms for obtaining money today through an agreement to repay the money over time with interest.
| | 0.8.01 Sale of Surplus Property | | Lysa Saltzman, Best, Best and Krieger | February 2000 | 15 pages | | This presentation on suggested school district procedures for sale of surplus property includes identifying, declaring and offering, the bid process waivers, and the use of funds from sale of surplus property.
|
0.09 2002-2006 Bond Elections | 0.9.09 Where the Money Comes From | | Joe Dixon, Capistrano Unified School District | August 2007 | | | This presentation explores options for funding the seismic upgrading of public schools identified as hazardous under the provisions of AB 300 and poses a series of questions that districts should consider when exploring funding options.
| | 0.9.08 Description of Prop 1D; Update on the Regulations and Funding | | Duwayne Brooks, Murdoch, Walrath & Holmes | August 2007 | | | This presentation discusses: the funding allocated by Prop 1D to repair, reconstruct, or replace the most vulnerable Category 2 school buildings, as defined by DSA; the criteria proposed by DSA that must be met to qualify as the most vulnerable of Category 2 buildings; the criteria for seismic funding eligibility, as stated in Ed Code Section 17075.10; the regulations proposed implementing Proposition 1D; the SAB Implementation Committee’s recommendations concerning these regulations; and OPSC’s initial response to the Implementation Committee’s recommendations.
| | 0.9.07 Summary of Legislation—Agency Roles and Responsibilities | | Dennis Dunston, HMC Architects; Steve Newsom, LPA, Inc.; and Bill Savidge, West Contra Costa USD | July 2007 | | | This presentation gives a brief overview of the Governor’s Green Initiative and other high performance legislative proposals, but focuses primarily on AB 127 (Chapter 35, Statutes of 2006), which provides incentives to construct high performance schools. The presentation discusses the development of regulations to implement AB 127, the OPSC/DSA Task Group, the establishment of grant increases and new construction and modernization grant amounts, Global Green’s perspective, and the DSA and OPSC processes. The presentation also includes a funding example.
| | 0.9.06b Proposition 1D Issues | | Ian Padilla, Murdoch, Walrath and Holmes; Margie Brown, San Ramon Valley USD; Dennis Dunston, HMC Architects; Bill Savidge, West Contra Costa USD | November 13, 2006 | | | This presentation includes the following information:
An overview of the November 2006 election, including:
• County election results for Propositions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 84, 86, 87, 88, and 90
• A comparison of the number of Democrats and Republicans in the State Legislature, U.S. House of Representatives, and U.S. Senate in 2005-06 vs. 2007-08
• Local school bond results
Non-Proposition 1D issues, including
• Alternative enrollment projection methods (AB 491)
• Grant increases
• Excessive cost hardship grant for accessibility requirements on modernization projects
• General site augmentation for new construction
• SFP adjustments to the new construction baseline eligibility
• Piggyback contracts and permanent modular construction
• Labor compliance programs
Proposition 1D issues, including
• Overcrowding relief grants
• Small high schools
• General site grant increase
• Career technical education
• Seismic mitigation grants
• Charter school provisions
• High performance schools | | 0.9.06a Proposition 1D Issues | | Dave Walrath, Murdoch, Walrath and Holmes; Ted Rozzi, Corona-Norco USD; Eric Hall, Eric Hall & Associates | November 9, 2006 | | | This presentation includes the following information:
An overview of the November 2006 election, including:
• County election results for Propositions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 84, 86, 87, 88, and 90
• A comparison of the number of Democrats and Republicans in the State Legislature, U.S. House of Representatives, and U.S. Senate in 2005-06 vs. 2007-08
• Local school bond results
Non-Proposition 1D issues, including
• Increases to the New Construction base grant
• Labor compliance programs
• Piggyback contracts and permanent modular facilities
• Alternative enrollment projection methods (AB 491)
• SFP adjustments to the new construction baseline eligibility
• Excessive cost hardship grant for accessibility requirements on modernization projects
• Additional grant for site development
Proposition 1D issues, including
• Seismic mitigation grants
• Charter school provisions
• Overcrowding relief grants
• Small high schools
• Career technical education
• High performance schools
• General site grant increases | | 0.9.05 Financial Hardship – Myth vs. Reality | | David Zian, Office of Public School Construction (OPSC); Dave Stevenson, San Bernardino City School District; Julie Arthur, San Jacinto USD | | | | This presentation dismantles the myths of financial hardship and deals with the real issues, including required paperwork, reporting, close-out, and audits.
| | 0.9.04 Funding Options | | Tom Duffy, Murdoch, Walrath & Holmes; Terry Bradley, Clovis USD | August 2004 | 23 pages | | This presentation updates funding provisions and grant amounts for Propositions 37, 1A, 47 and 55. Provisions for small schools, Critically Overcrowded Schools (COS), hardship, modernization, deferred maintenance and joint-use are included.
| | 0.9.03 Proposition 55 Overview | | Dave Walrath, Murdoch, Walrath and Holmes | March 2004 | 1 page | | This overview of Proposition 55 includes new construction, Charter Schools, Joint Use, COS, Modernization and energy efficiency.
| | 0.9.02 AB 16 Required Regulation Development | | Tom Duffy, C.A.S.H. | May-November 2002 | 5 pages | | C.A.S.H. has developed a spreadsheet for the development of necessary regulations to implement distribution of the bond funds. | | 0.9.01 AB 16 Education Facility Bond Provisions | | Assembly Member Bob Hertzberg, summarized by Tom Duffy | May 2002 | 3 pages | | This summary specifies how the 11.4 billion 2002 bond is divided and allocated. Also included are K-12 construction highlights. |
0.10 OPSC Updates | 0.10.18 New SAB Funding Opportunities | | Kathy Hicks, OPSC | February 2007 | | | An update on the latest State Allocation Board funding opportunities for new and existing programs is provided in this presentation.
| | 0.10.17 OPSC Update | | Luisa Park and Lori Morgan, State Allocation Board/Office of Public School Construction, and Mavonne Garrity, State Allocation Board | October 2006 | | | Topics addressed in this update include:
• State Allocation Board membership
• School Facility Program (SFP) Overview
o SFP Funding Overview
o Program Accomplishments
o SFP Funding Status
o Modernization Program Unfunded List
o Fund Releases
o Unmet Needs
• Status of Other Program Funding
• Current Issues
o Reports to the State Allocation Board
o 2006 Bond Proposal
o Funding Projections
• Implementation Committee – Proposed 2006 Bond Act
o High Performance School Incentive Grant
o Small High Schools Program
o Grant Increases
o Charter School Facilities Program
o Seismic Mitigation Program
o Career Technical Education Facilities Program
o Overcrowding Relief Program
• The Future: Legislation Recently Signed by the Governor
• State Relocatable Classroom Program Phase-Out
• OPSC Resources
| | 0.10.16 General Site Increase, ADA Access Compliance, and Grant Adequacy | | Chris DeLong, OPSC | October 2006 | | | This presentation discusses the grant adequacy ad hoc committee, additional grants for general site development, and accessibility requirements for excessive cost hardship grants.
| | 0.10.15 SFP Plan Review Guidelines and the State Relocatable Classroom Program | | Carol Shellenberger, OPSC | October 2006 | | | This presentation discusses the components of the SFP Plan Review Guidelines, including drawing requirements, civil plans, architectural plans, structural plans, plumbing/mechanical plans, detailed cost estimate, recommended documentation, additional eligible utility costs for permanent buildings that are 50 years or older, and the use of the site development worksheet available on the OPSC website. The presentation also discusses the state relocatable classroom program, including background on program phase-out, purchase of relocatable classrooms, notification of available relocatable classrooms, and the phase-out first-round status report.
| | 0.10.14 Where Are We Now and Where Are We Going? | | Kathy Hicks, Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) | March 2006 | | | This update includes information on funding projects under “piggyback” contract conditions.
| | 0.10.13 OPSC Program Services Update | | Carol Shellenberger, Steve Paul, Lisa Constancio, and Eric Bakke | February 2006 | | | This update deals with piggyback contracts, unused sites, SFP joint-use, the Emergency Repair Program, and AB 491 regulations (Goldberg 2005)
| | 0.10.12 The OPSC Perspective | | Lindsay Keyes, Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) | September 2005 | | | This presentation covers the School Facility Needs Assessment Grant Program (SFNAGP), including reporting requirements, available funds, and accounting information; the Emergency Repair Program (ERP); the Good Repair and Interim Evaluation Instrument (IEI); and the School Facility Inspection System (SFIS)
| | 0.10.11 School Facility Program Handbook | | Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) | 2005 | 100 pages | | This handbook explains the organization and funding involved in the School Facilities Program including construction, modernization, relocatables, deferred maintenance, and lease purchase.
| | 0.10.10 Status of Funds | | Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) | May 2005 | | | This spreadsheet presents the status of bond funds from Propositions 55, 47, and 1A as of May 25, 2005.
| | 0.10.09 Proposition 47 – An Overview of Opportunities | | State Allocation Board (SAB), Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) | January 2003 | 10 pages | | This presentation provides an overview of Proposition 47 and AB16, including information regarding new construction, modernization, critically overcrowded school facilities, joint-use projects, type I, II and II project eligibility and funding priority, and charter schools are all a part of this presentation. | | 0.10.08 Financial Hardship. You’re Approved Now What? | | Rhonda Parker, Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) | February 2002 | 12 pages | | The financial hardship topics covered in this presentation include approvals, release of funds, interim financing, expenditures, pitfalls, new regulations, and interim housing allowances. | | 0.10.07 Project Funding Opportunities Under Proposition 47 - Charter School Facility Program | | Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) | February 2003 | | | This portion presents the Charter School Facility Program including information regarding program eligibility, filing periods, application submittal, apportionment determination and funding criteria.
| | 0.10.06 Project Funding Opportunities Under Proposition 47 - Critically Overcrowded School Facility Program (COS) | | Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) | February 2003 | | | This presentation provides information regarding the Critically Overcrowded School Facility Program, including its definition, the CDE School Source List, the program criteria, preliminary apportionment components, the project ranking and reporting requirements.
| | 0.10.05 Project Funding Opportunities Under Proposition 47 - Joint-Use Facility Program | | Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) | February 2003 | 14 pages | | This Joint-Use Facilities Program presentation describes the three types of joint-use projects and provides information regarding project eligibility, grant determination, funding priority order, joint-use partners, and application submittal requirements and dates
| | 0.10.04 Critically Overcrowded School Facilities Program | | T.J. Rapozo, Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) | May 2004 | 8 pages | | This OPSC update on the Critically Overcrowded School Facilities Program includes the status of the program, available funds, reporting requirements, fund releases, qualifying pupils and school site requirements | | 0.10.03 OPSC Program Updates - Joint-Use Program, SB 15 | | Lori Morgan, State Allocation Board (SAB)/Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) and Lisa Constancio, Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) | February 2004 | 12 pages | | An overview of the Joint-Use Program is presented here, including maximizing your assets by joint-use, reconfiguration, partnership funding options, and SB 15 grant determination.
| | 0.10.02 OPSC Program Updates - Critically Overcrowded School Facilities Program (COS) | | Lori Morgan, State Allocation Board (SAB)/Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) and Lisa Constancio, Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) | February 2004 | 17 pages | | The CDE responsibilities to COS applications is discussed, including apportionments, project ranking, and reporting requirements.
| | 0.10.01 OPSC Program Updates - Charter School Facility Program | | Lori Morgan, State Allocation Board (SAB)/Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) and Lisa Constancio, Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) | February 2004 | 18 pages | | This update includes Charter School Program eligibility, funding design and resource information.
|
|
|
