Asset Preservation Program OSPI School Facilities and Organization November, 2010 Scott Back & Tom...

Asset Preservation Program

OSPI School Facilities and Organization November, 2010

Scott Back & Tom Kuehn,

Union High School, Camas WA

Updated Version 11-15-10

1. Evolution of the State Maintenance Policy

2. The Asset Preservation Program

3. Questions or Comments

In early 1990’s State Board of Education crafted a maintenance policy framework

2. 2% Rule (WAC 392-347-023) is adopted.

1. 30 year building life

A school shall be ineligible for state assistance if the total expenditures for maintenance of plant and equipment for that facility during the 15 year period immediately preceding the project application was below one-half of one percent of the total of the annually determined building replacement value

during the same period. (Filed in 1991 to affect post 1993 buildings)

3. An expenditure and accounting rule.

1994

Accounting for 15 years prior

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

2024 2025

30 Years

15 YearsProject Accepted

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037

2038 2039

40 Years

Accounting for 25 years prior

2% Rule Basic Timeline

Roof Rpr/Rpl

The 2% Rule problems . . .

OSPI’s two major goals:

State Board of Education’s goal . . .

Fifteen years with the 2% . . .

Transition from the 2% Rule to the Asset Preservation Rule

Accounting Rule to a Performance Rule

1. Maintain the SBE intent.

2. Replacement rule non-burdensome.

The result was the . . . Asset Preservation Program


The 2% Rule was revised in May of 2009 with the “Asset Preservation Rule” (APR)(WAC 392-347-023) which . . .

. . . strongly encourages the maintaining of State assisted New and New-in-Lieu school

construction projects by:

Requiring that districts participate in the “Asset Preservation Program” (APP) as one of

the eligibility requirements for State funded construction assistance.

Asset Preservation Program ( APP )

2. To whom does it apply?

1. What is it?

3. How will it affect you?

4. Some program details

5. How does it affect funding eligibility?

6. When does this go into effect?

8. What might be on the horizon?

7. What’s next for the APP?

Encourages facility maintenance of state assisted projects.


Ties maintenance to future state funding.

There are three basic components to the program:

1. A commitment by the district administration . . .

2. The implementation of an Asset Preservation System.

3. Participation in a system of performance accountability and reporting.

What is it?

State assisted Modernizations and Additions are exempt from compliance with the APP Rule. ******

Any New or New-in-Lieu

Any facility constructed with only local funding is exempt.

****** Separate buildings, N/L-Mods 75/25

The next three slides show a list of the 1994 and 1995 projects that we have identified. If we do not identify your building you are not exempt from compliance. It is your responsibility to enter the program!

Skill Centers and Transportation Co-ops must comply.

All facilities accepted after 1995 must also comply .


To whom does it apply?

District Project Type

Battleground SD HS Center for Agriculture New Construction

Bremerton SD Mt. View Middle New Construction

Burlington SD Bay View Elementary

Cle Elum/Roslyn SD Elementary/High School New Construction

Colville SD High School New Construction

Everett SD Gateway Middle New Construction

Evergreen SD Pioneer Elementary

Federal Way SD Green Gables Elementary

Federal Way SD Rainier View Elementary

Finley SD Finley Elementary

Kennewick SD Amistad Elementary

Kennewick SD Horse Heaven Hills Middle

Kent SD Cedar Heights Junior

Kent SD Surprise Lake Elementary

Northshore SD Kokanee Elementary

North Thurston SD River Ridge High

Riverview SD Cedarcrest High

New Construction

New Construction

New Construction

New Construction

New Construction

New Construction

New Construction

Arlington SD Kent Prairie Elementary New Construction

New Construction

New Construction

New Construction

New Construction

New Construction

January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1994

District Project Type

Bellingham SD Kulshan Middle New Construction

Cheney SD** Cheney High New in Lieu -- Addition

Everett SD Cascade High

Kent SD Sawyer Woods Elementary New Construction

Kent SD Meadow Ridge Elementary New Construction

Lakewood SD English Crossing Elementary New Construction

Marysville SD Allen Creek Elementary

Medical Lake SD Medical Lake Elementary

Mukilteo SD Kamiak High

New Construction

New Construction

New Construction

New Construction

Bainbridge Island SD Commodore Middle New Construction

January 1, 1995 to December 31, 1995

Tacoma SD Sheridan Elementary

Tumwater SD Bush Middle

University Place SD Evergreen Primary

Vancouver SD Eleanor Roosevelt Elementary

Wenatchee SD Foothills Middle

Yelm SD Mill Pond Intermediate

New Construction

New Construction

New Construction

New Construction

New Construction

New Construction

Tacoma SD Manitou Elementary New in Lieu

Tahoma SD Glacier Park Elementary New Construction

Spokane SD Logan Elementray New in Lieu

North Kitsap SD Vinland Elementary

Puyallup SD Ballou Junior

Puyallup SD Woodland Elementary

Renton SD Lakeridge Elementary

Spokane SD Stevens Elementary

Spokane SD Hamblen Elementary

New Construction

New in Lieu

New in Lieu

New in Lieu

New in Lieu

New Construction

Mukilteo SD Endeavor Elementary

North Kitsap SD Richard Gordon Elementary

New Construction

New Construction

All Other Buildings Board Accepted After December 31, 1995

Check with OSPI School Facilities for a list of your district’s APP buildings.

We need you to verify:

1. If the project is a state assisted New or N/L building, board accepted after December 31, 1993, it needs to be in the Asset Preservation Program as a requirement of eligibility for state assistance after it reaches 30 years of age.

Administration, commons, library, and classrooms

Classrooms

Gym

Entire building built New or N/L after 1993

APP? Yes.

Buildings 1994 to 2010


2. If the project on the list is an state assisted addition, is it a stand alone building or is it attached to another building? If it is a stand alone building it needs to be a part of the APP.

Main Building

Attached Addition

Stand Alone Addition

Covered or Enclosed Walkway

APP? Yes.

APP? No.


3. If the project on the list is a state assisted mod and an Addition or N/L, is the mod square footage 25% of the total project or less? If it 25% or less, then the whole project needs to be a part of the APP.

APP? Yes. APP? No.

Addition or New - In - Lieu

75%

Mod

=>25% 70%

Mod

30%



Addition or New - In - Lieu

Very little effect if . . .

You will need to comply if . . .


How will it affect you?

Asset Preservation Program (APP) Components – April, 2010

Board Reso., District Policy & Procedures

Asset Preservation

System

APR Accountability

Educational Adequacy

Asset Preservation

District Accountability

Targeted Standards

Reporting System

Match Ineligible

School Board Review

Policy Procedures

OSPI Review

BC Standard

Community Review

Building Assessments

( Reporting )

1. Board Resolution, Policies and Procedures

2. Asset Preservation System

3. Accountability


Some program details

1. Board Resolution


3. Accountability

• Policies• Procedures

• Plan• Building Condition Evaluation • Annual Report

• Annual Report to Board• Six Year Report to Board & OSPI• State Construction Funding Eligibility

Asset Preservation Program (APP) Components

1. Board Resolution



**Note: Blanket Resolution

**


3. Accountability



No _____________

School Facilities

Whereas, the school district is committed to preserve the district’s facilities in a safe, healthful and educationally effective manner that is compliant with applicable codes and requirements; and

Whereas, the superintendent or his/her designee shall oversee the development of an Asset Preservation System (APS) with supporting policies and procedures to comply with all requirements of the Asset Preservation Rule (APR) (WAC 392-347-023); and

Whereas, the APS shall provide for the preservation of district facilities by employing a system of processes, to include but not limited to predictive and preventative, repairs, maintenance, and re-conditioning; and

Whereas, the APS shall also include a yearly and six year evaluation and reporting process to comply with the requirements that facilities sustain their expected life cycle, and include a commitment to implement an APS in all facilities constructed with state matching funds and accepted after December 31, 1993;

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Board of Directors of the ___________ School District does hereby certify the aforementioned findings to the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Educational Equity

Asset Preservation


APP Sample Board Resolution ( WSSDA, OSPI )

1. Board Resolution




3. Accountability



OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF SCHOOL PROPERTY1. Facilities Maintenance

The superintendent shall provide for a program to maintain the district physical plant and grounds by way of a continuous program of repair, maintenance and reconditioning. Budget recommendations shall be made each year to meet these needs and any such needs arising from an emergency.

2. Infrastructure Management

The _________board of directors also desires to maintain the infrastructure of district facilities.

In order to assure state funding, for facilities constructed new or new in lieu after 1993, the board of directors will adopt an asset preservation program (APP). The APP will preserve the district facilities by employing a system of predictive, preventative, and proactive processes. Annually, the superintendent will report to the board on the condition of the facilities and the effectiveness of the APP. Every sixth year an independent assessment will be conducted and reported to the board and the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Additionally, the superintendent will develop a process to evaluate all pre-1994 facilities for possible participation in the asset preservation program.

For initial participation in the APP, the board will submit a resolution to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction committing the district to implement the program.

The superintendent will develop procedures for the asset preservation program.

APP Sample Policy ( WSSDA )

1. Board Resolution




3. Accountability



APP Sample Procedures ( OSPI, WSSDA )

1. The director of Maintenance shall be responsible to conduct a Building Condition Evaluation on each APP eligible facility by August 15th of each year.

2. The facilities director shall be responsible to prepare a report on each APP eligible facility and present it to the Board of Directors on or before April 1 of each year.

3. . . .

4. . . .

5. . . . etc.

1. Board Resolution


3. Accountability





Asset Preservation System ( APS ) Components

1. Plan• Preventative & Predictive• What You are Currently Doing . . . Plus• Your Decision --- Meet the Standard• Model Plan

2. Building Condition Evaluation • OSPI BCE• Pilot Plan• Other - Electronic



BUILDING CONDITIONEVALUATION FORM

County/School District School Name Building Name/#RATINGS

GOOD FAIR POOR UNSAT. COMBINEDCOMPONENTS SYSTEMS (1) (2) (3) (4) COMMENTS

1.0 Exterior Building Condition 1.1 Foundation/Structure +12 +8 +6 +4 1.2 Walls +8 +5 +3 +1 1.3 Roof +7 +5 +2 0

Component Score 1.4 Windows/Doors +2 +1 0 0 1.5 Trim +2 +1 0 0

2.0 Interior Building Condition 2.1 Floors +8 +5 +2 0 2.2 Walls +8 +5 +1 0

Component Score 2.3 Ceilings +5 +3 +1 0 2.4 Fixed Equipment +2 +1 0 0

3.0 Mechanical Systems Condition 3.1 Electrical +6 +4 +2 0 3.2 Plumbing +4 +2 +1 0 3.3 Heating +6 +4 +2 +1

Component Score 3.4 Cooling +6 +4 +2 +1 3.5 Lighting +4 +3 +2 0

4.0 Safety/Building Code 4.1 Means of Exit +6 +4 +2 0 4.2 Fire Control Capability +4 +3 +2 +1 4.3 Fire Alarm System +4 +3 +2 +1

Component Score 4.4 Emergency Lighting +2 +1 0 0 4.5 Fire Resistance +4 +3 +2 +1 TOTALS

5.0 Provisions for Handicapped X X X X

4 Building makes positive contribution to educational environment Suitability Code and Definition 3 Building suitable (Circle Appropriate Code) 2 Current use of space is compatible with intendend use but needs remodeling

1 Current use of space is not compatible with intendend use or design

Significant Location Factors / Overall Conclusions

Unadjusted Adjusted Evaluator Signature Date Score Score School Official Signature

OSPI Building Condition Evaluation Summary Form

Aberdeen School District

A J West Elementary

Site

Projects

Central Park Elementary

McDermoth Elementary

Robert Gray Elementary

A J West Elementary




Almira School District

Amanda Park School District

Anacortes School District

Arlington School District

Asotin School District

Auburn School District


Adna School District





Building Condition File Attachments ApproveChange / Add

COMPONENT

Building: Use:

RATING

Main

Foundation

Ex Windows Good

Roof Good

Ex Doors Fair

Int. Walls Good

Int. Doors Good

Ceilings Fair

Plumbing Good

Fire System Fair

HVAC Good

Water Supply Good

Controls Good

Ex Walls Good Lighting Good Electrical Good

Deficiencies/Causes

Component Rating

Overall Bldg Rating: GoodOff., Lib, ComInventory

Building

ConditionBuilding Profile: Administration

Inventory & Condition of Schools (ICOS)

Standard Foundation

Slab on Grade

Basement Walls

Floor Construction

Roof Construction

Exterior Walls

Exterior Windows

Exterior Doors

Roof Coverings

Roof Openings

Partitions

Interior Doors

Stair construction

Wall Finishes

Floor Finishes

Ceiling Finishes

Elevators & Lifts

Plumbing Fixtures

Water distribution

A1010

A1030

A2020

B1010

B1020

B2010

B2020

B2030

B3010

B3020

C1010

C1020

C2010

C3010

C3020

C3030

D1010

D2010

D2020

6.5 %

5.5 %

0.0 %

0.0 %

10.5 %

2.75 %

3.25 %

3.0 %

4.5 %

0.0 %

4.5 %

2.5 %

1.0 %

1.5 %

3.0 %

2.5 %

0.0 %

4.0 %

1.5 %

Rain Water Drainage

HVAC Equipment

HVAC Distribution & Contrl

Fire Protection Systems

Electrical Serv & Distrib

Lighting & Branch Wiring

Comm & Security Systems

Emergency Electrical Syst

Institutional Equipment

Commercial Equipment

Fixed Furnishings

Total

D2040

D3020

D3040

D4010

D5010

D5020

D5030

D5090

E1020

E1030

E2010

0.5 %

4.5 %

3.0 %

2.5 %

12.5 %

6.75 %

3.25 %

0.5 %

4.0 %

0.5 %

4.5 %

100.00 %

Building Profile – Administration 1 Story ~~ Component Level

Sanitary WasteD2030 1.0 %

Local Construction SF Cost $235.00

Building Square Footage 23,567 SF

Estimated Replacement Cost $5,538,245

Equals


A J West Elementary

Site

Projects




A J West Elementary

















COMPONENT

Building: Use:

RATING

Main

Foundation

Ex Windows Good

Roof Good

Ex Doors Fair

Int. Walls Good

Int. Doors Good

Ceilings Fair

Plumbing Good

Fire System Fair

HVAC Good

Water Supply Good

Controls Good


Deficiencies/Causes

Component Rating

Overall Bldg Rating: GoodOff., Lib, Com

Inadequate Flow

Moisture Penetration

Opening in Wall

Sagging

Settlement

Deterioration

Ventilation

Temperature Changes

Other

Broken Utilities

Condensation

Design Loads

Leakage

Occupancy Changes

Drainage

Soils

Surface Water

Other

DEFICIENCES CAUSES

Foundation

Inventory

Building




A J West Elementary

Site

Projects




A J West Elementary

















COMPONENT

Building: Use:

RATING

Main

Foundation

Ex Windows Good

Roof Good

Ex Doors Fair

Int. Walls Good

Int. Doors Good

Ceilings Fair

Plumbing Good

Fire System Fair

HVAC Good

Water Supply Good

Controls Good


Deficiencies/Causes

Component Rating


Inadequate Flow


Opening in Wall

Sagging

Settlement

Deterioration

Broken Utilities

Condensation

Design Loads

Leakage

Occupancy Changes

Roof Drainage

DEFICIENCES CAUSES

ROUTINE MAINTENANCE: No apparent deficiencies or problems. Routine maintenance adequate to preserve or maintain.

MINOR REPAIR: Slight soiling or discoloration visible. Prompt correction can bring surfaces back to good appearance and routine maintenance capable of preserving use

MAJOR REPAIR: Slight soiling or discoloration visible. Prompt correction can bring surfaces back to good appearance and routine maintenance capable of preserving use

REPLACEMENT: Slight soiling or discoloration visible. Prompt correction can bring surfaces back to good appearance and routine maintenance capable of preserving use

GOOD (1)

FAIR (2)

POOR (3)

UNSAT (4)

RATING

Foundation

Inventory

Building



Inadequate Flow


Opening in Wall

Sagging

Settlement

Deterioration

Broken Utilities

Condensation

Design Loads

Leakage

Occupancy Changes

Roof Drainage

DEFICIENCES CAUSES





GOOD (1)

FAIR (2)

POOR (3)

UNSAT (4)

RATING

Foundation

90%

60%

30%

0%

Rating on the Component Level


A J West Elementary

Site

Projects




A J West Elementary

















COMPONENT

Building: Use:

RATING

Main

Foundation Good

Ex Windows Good

Roof Good

Ex Doors Fair

Int. Walls Good

Int. Doors Good

Ceilings Fair

Plumbing Good

Fire System Fair

HVAC Good

Water Supply Good

Controls Good


Deficiencies/Causes

Component Rating


Inadequate Flow


Opening in Wall

Sagging

Settlement

Deterioration

Broken Utilities

Condensation

Design Loads

Leakage

Occupancy Changes

Roof Drainage

DEFICIENCES CAUSES





GOOD (1)

FAIR (2)

POOR (3)

UNSAT (4)

RATING

Foundation

Inventory

Building



DRAFT

Cat

egor

y T

otal

Sample Building Condition Report

District: Building:

County: Year Built:Sq. Ft.

Enrollment:School:

Grade level: Report Date:

Inspection Date:

Other:

Building #

SITE INVENTORY DATA

BUILDING CONDITION DATA

Structural Electrical Mechanical HVAC Roof Health & Safety

Fou

ndat

ion

Bea

ms

& C

olum

ns

Ext

erio

rs

Win

dow

s &

Doo

rs

Cat

egor

y T

otal

Oth

er

Mai

n S

ervi

ce

Dis

trib

utio

n P

anel

s

Load

Cal

cula

tions

Ligh

ting

Fix

ture

s

Fix

ed E

quip

men

t

Ele

vato

rs &

Lift

s

Kitc

hen

Equ

ipm

ent

Voc

atio

nal E

quip

men

t

Pla

y S

truc

ture

s

Cat

egor

y T

otal

Hea

ting

& C

oolin

g U

nits

Air

Han

dler

s

Con

trol

s

Filt

ers

Lubr

icat

ion

Cat

egor

y T

otal

Sur

face

Pen

etra

tions

Gut

ters

Dow

nspo

uts

Ven

tilat

ion

Cat

egor

y T

otal

AD

A

Air

Qua

lity

Wat

er Q

ualit

y

Spr

inkl

er S

yste

m

Ala

rm S

yste

ms

Cat

egor

y T

otal

Deficiencies & Causes

Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description:

Estimated Repair Date: Estimated Repair Date: Estimated Repair Date: Estimated Repair Date: Estimated Repair Date: Estimated Repair Date:

Estimated Cost: Estimated Cost: Estimated Cost: Estimated Cost: Estimated Cost: Estimated Cost:

Inspected By:Total Score: Adjusted Score (Total Score / 3) =

40 Possible Points 50 Possible Points60 Possible Points60 Possible Points40 Possible Points50 Possible Points

AVSD #01

Apple

Red Apple ES

K-6

Main

51,143

N/A

1995

8-15-10478

3-15-11

8 68 6 5 33 10 78 7 6 38 6 56 4 4 25 9 89 9 9 44 9 109 9 9 469 99 8 9 44

77230

Play structures have cracks in the slides and platforms,

12-15-10

$2,200

DRAFT

Sample Building Condition Standard ( BCS )

Building Condition Scoring Standard

Year Scoring Standard Range

1 99 to100

2 98 to 99

3 97 to 98

4 96 to 97

5 95 to 96

6

7 91 to 92

8 89 to 90

9 87 to 88

10 85 to 86



11 83 to 84

12 80 to 83

13 78 to 79

14 76 to 77

15 74 to 75

16 72 to 73

17 70 to 71

18 67 to 70

19 65 to 66

20 63 to 64



21 61 to 62

22 59 to 60

23 57 to 58

24 54 to 57

25 52 to 53

26 50 to 51

27 48 to 49

28 46 to 47

29 44 to 45

30 40 to 44

92 to 95

Failure to meet BCS at year 18 initiates having to implement a Facility Improvement Plan.

Failure to meet BCS at year 12 initiates a warning that the district is in danger of having to implement a Facility Improvement Plan (FIP).

DRAFT

Sample Facility Improvement Plan ( FIP )Buildings that have received a warning in the twelfth year of their APP, that they

have fallen below the Building Condition Standard (BCS), shall have until the next certified reporting period (year 18) to bring their building up to standard.

If, in the eighteenth year they have not made the necessary improvements to meet the Building Condition Standard, they must implement a Facility Improvement Plan (FIP) for the building in question.

The FIP shall consist of the following components:

• A detailed description of the deficiencies that led to the failure to meet standard.

• A detailed description of how those deficiencies will be corrected.

• A detailed financial plan on how the improvement shall be funded.

• An annual report detailing the adequate yearly progress made towards reaching the BCS and an accounting of the maintenance expenditures in support of the FIP.

Buildings that fail to meet the standard at the 30th year shall have their state assistance reduced by 2% per BCS point below standard, to a maximum of 20%.

Buildings that would have a reduction of more than 20% shall be ineligible for state assistance.

DRAFT

Sample Building Condition Standard ( BCS )



1 99 to100

2 98 to 99

3 97 to 98

4 96 to 97

5 95 to 96

6

7 91 to 92

8 89 to 90

9 87 to 88

10 85 to 86



11 83 to 84

12 80 to 83

13 78 to 79

14 76 to 77

15 74 to 75

16 72 to 73

17 70 to 71

18 67 to 70

19 65 to 66

20 63 to 64



21 61 to 62

22 59 to 60

23 57 to 58

24 54 to 57

25 52 to 53

26 50 to 51

27 48 to 49

28 46 to 47

29 44 to 45

30 40 to 44

92 to 95

Failure to meet BCS at year 18 initiates having to implement a Facility Improvement Plan.

Failure to meet BCS at year 12 initiates a warning that the district is in danger of having to implement a Facility Improvement Plan (FIP).

3. Annual Report • Condition of the Building (s)• Other – Building Deficiencies, Budget Requests, etc.

2. Building Condition Evaluation • OSPI BCE• Pilot Plan• Other - Electronic



DRAFT

As a requirement of the Asset Preservation Program, applicable school district facility or maintenance departments must report annually on the condition of qualifying buildings. This is designed to be a self assessment.

Sample APP Annual & Six Year Report

Additionally, every six years, a report from a certified evaluator must be presented to the school board and to OSPI. The minimum data required in these reports are listed below:

1. The building condition score.2. Changes to the building inventory.

1. Major maintenance projects conducted in the building.2. Annual maintenance, custodial and capital expenditures for the building and what percentage the expenditures were of the annual district budget.3. Potential issues that need to be addressed and estimate of cost and timelines.4. System preventative and predictive actions performed during the year.5. Health & Safety issues that were addressed or are needed.

7. Resource conservation measures instituted and the savings experienced.6. Risk management issues that were addressed or are needed.

Required by APP:

District’s discretion:1. What facilities would like the board to know.2. What the board would like to know from facilities.

Examples:

APR Accountability ( Overview )

OSPI Review

A certified report to the School Board and to OSPI on the condition of buildings and

the effectiveness of the APS shall be given every six years. This report will measure

the condition of the district’s buildings against a Building Condition Standard

which is an assessment tool for determining compliance with asset

preservation and state assistance eligibility.

Building Condition Standard

This standard was developed and based on best practices realized in the building design, engineering, construction and maintenance industries. It lays out a scoring system based on the yearly depreciation of building systems and

infrastructure. Annual Building Condition assessments will be measured by this

standard.

School Board Review

A report to the School Board on the condition of buildings and the effectiveness of the APS shall be given each year. This

report is to keep the district informed about facility issues that need to be addressed thereby ensuring that districts are being good stewards of the assets provided

through the investment of public funds in school facilities.

Community Review

The community will be able to be present at the school board meeting to hear the annual report on the condition of the

district’s facilities. This will allow them to see what the district is doing to preserve

the taxpayer’s investment in their facilities and help them understand where new

expenditures might need to be budgeted.

State Construction Funding Eligibility

1. Participate in the Asset Preservation Program .

2. Pass a school board resolution.

Failure to participate in the APP will cause that facility to be ineligible for state construction funding assistance. (SBE)

Failure to maintain the minimum Building Condition Standard will reduce the amount of state construction funding assistance and could, potentially, make the building ineligible for any state construction funding assistance. (SBE)


How does it affect funding eligibility?

3. Implement an Asset Preservation System.

4. Conduct annual building condition evaluations.

5. Meet the minimum Building Condition Standard.

6. Report annually and every six years.

May Jun JulApr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2009 2010

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr

2011

Asset Preservation Rule enacted May 28, 2009

Asset Preservation Rule Implementation Timeline

(For all state funded new and new-in-lieu facilities accepted after December 31, 1993, and before January 1, 1995.)

Board Resolution adopted for 1994 buildings by

December 31, 2009

Asset Preservation System adopted by

January 1, 2011

Asset Preservation Program first annual report

due by April 1, 2011

1994 Facilities

When does this go into effect?


2009 2010


2011



(For all state funded new and new-in-lieu facilities accepted after December 31, 1994, and before January 1, 1996.)

Board Resolution adopted for 1995 buildings by

June 30, 2010


January 1, 2011


due by April 1, 2011

1995 Facilities


2009 2010


2011



(For all state funded new and new-in-lieu facilities accepted after December 31, 1995.)

Board Resolution adopted by January 1, 2011


January 1, 2011


due by July 1, 2011

After 12/31/1995


2009 2010


2011



(For all state funded new and new-in-lieu facilities accepted after December 31, 1995.)

Board Resolution adopted by January 1, 2011


January 1, 2011The Asset Preservation Programs first annual report due date is likely to be

extended in order to use the new Inventory and Condition of Schools System (ICOSS)

now under development.

Option for 1994 - 2010 Facilities

A Building Condition Standard (target date is 12/1/10).

A Pilot Building Condition Evaluation process (target date is 1/31/10).


What’s next for the APP?

Board Reso., District Policy & Procedures

Asset Preservation

System

APR Accountability

Educational Adequacy

Asset Preservation


Targeted Standards

Reporting System

Match Ineligible

School Board Review

Policy Procedures

OSPI Review

BC Standard

Community Review

Building Assessments

( Reporting )

Asset Preservation Program (APP) Components – June, 2009


What might be on the horizon?

Asset Preservation Program (BCE)

Inventory (OSPI, DSHS)

Mapping (WASPC)

Energy

Training

Risk Management

Health & Safety Rules

High Performance

Data System

Certification Other?

REQUIRED OPTIONALOPTIONAL

Efficiency

Additional Tools

Model Programs


SCAP Module

APP Module

WSSP Module

DOH Module

Energy ModuleStudy & Survey

Annual Report

D-Forms

Reporting

Health Rules

Safety Rules

Project Budgeting

Module

BCE

Board Resolution

APS

Possible Statewide Model

PDM Module

Fire

Lockdown

Earthquake

Flood

If you have questions or want to provide comments on this information please contact:

Tom Kuehn 360-725-6221 ~ [email protected]

School Construction Assistance Program


Scott Black360-725-6268 ~ [email protected]

Asset Preservation Program OSPI School Facilities and Organization November, 2010 Scott Back & Tom...

Documents

Transcript of Asset Preservation Program OSPI School Facilities and Organization November, 2010 Scott Back & Tom...