Study group meets on law to end school building oversight
Those concerned about a bill that would remove some oversight of K-12 public school construction and repair projects reiterated the concerns at a study group meeting on Tuesday. responsible for working on legislation.
An amended Bill 220, approved by the state legislature in May, will remove state oversight by the Construction Management Division (DCM) of the Alabama Department of Finance for construction projects and repairs under $ 500,000 in K-12 schools, universities and public parks. It also removes all roofing and HVAC repair and maintenance projects under the supervision of DCM.
Governor Kay Ivey sent an amended version of the bill to lawmakers ahead of its passage, delaying the impact of the K-12 Schools Act until February 1, 2022, and also set up the group of ‘study and tasked members to respond to concerns expressed during previous debates on the bill.
A letter opposing the bill was signed by the Alabama Associated General Contractors, Associated Builders and Contractors of Alabama, Subcontractors Association of Alabama, American Institute of Architects Alabama and Alabama Contractors Association.
Among those concerned is Tim Love, president of the Alabama Association of Fire Chiefs and chief of the Alabaster Fire Department, who is a member of the study group.
Love told Tuesday’s meeting that there were still concerns that the removal of surveillance could lead to safety concerns for school staff, students and first responders who must enter buildings in an emergency.
Ryan Hollingsworth, executive director of Alabama school superintendents, asked the group to consider raising the law’s $ 500,000 cap to $ 750,000 due to recent increases in the costs of building materials.
âThere can be a lot of catastrophic events associated with even a $ 25,000 capital project or school improvement,â Love said, adding that they would prefer to lower the figure to $ 500,000 but are certainly against its increase.
Representative Nathaniel Ledbetter, R-Rainsville, who introduced the HB 220, was elected chair of the study group at the start of the meeting. Ledbetter told APR in April that he drafted the bill after Dekalb County Superintendent of Schools, Jason Barnett, approached him to express his concerns about costly and time-consuming construction projects.
Barnett, speaking to APR in April, was hesitant to explain why DCM had stopped working on repairing the roof of a gymnasium, when asked if it was due to non-compliance with codes, but ultimately responded ” not to my knowledge “.
Love told APR at the time that he heard about this gym project that worried Barnett, so he called DMC to find out more, and was told it was due to code compliance. the old building.
Representative Donnie Chasteen, R-Geneva, who was elected vice-chair of the study group, told the meeting that as lawmakers they have received calls from the education community about âProblems with the Department of Construction Management, in that cost and time.
Chasteen said a small high school had a budget of around $ 150,000 to upgrade a science lab, but after DCM reviewed the plans and recommended the changes, the cost rose to $ 350,000. .
âWhile they may have been blamed for taking a project from $ 100,000 to $ 350,000, they don’t,â said Heather Page, Whorton Engineering Study Group member and president-elect of the ‘American Council of Engineering Companies of Alabama. âThese are the designers. We are the ones who design it. We are supposed to give homeowners a realistic scope budget, and it is our responsibility to design according to the applicable code. ”
Allen Harris, CEO of Bailey-Harris Construction and a member of the study group, said cost increases on school projects are often the result of an older school building having to meet changing building codes.
âOver the past 10 and 15 years, they’ve changed a lot,â Harris said of state building codes. âDCM just makes sure all of those codes are included. ”
John Montgomery, appointed by Governor Ivey to the Alabama Department of Finance Study Group and General Counsel, said that while some school construction projects take longer than others to be reviewed by the DCM, records show the ministry has a short turnaround time for the majority.
âOver the past five years, DCM has reviewed 8,068 plans and an average of 6.43 calendar days. On average, revising DCM’s plan for code compliance takes less than a week, âsaid Montgomery.
Love said his association’s biggest concern was who would be responsible for inspecting public school construction projects once DCM no longer provided such oversight.
âCounties and municipalities currently do not have the power to conduct such inspections and enforce codes, so who would enforce this code? Love asked, adding that many counties do not have construction departments.
An attorney for the committee, who was not identified at the meeting, responded that the bill did not dictate who would do these inspections, but gave the Alabama Department of Education the task of decide on those details, adding that local school boards might decide to use DCM.
âOne thing the bill does is that it requires architects on site to inspect it periodically,â Ledbetter said.
the the language of the invoice does not, however, require architects to periodically inspect the projects they themselves are paid to design. The unidentified lawyer who spoke earlier addressed this fact later.
âAgain, the bill does not specifically say who would be the last party performing property inspections under the new regulatory regime,â the lawyer said. “It would depend on the standardized process proposed by the Department of Education, in whatever forms they provide, whatever checklists they give to local school boards to follow in construction projects.”
Chuck Ledbetter, a district president with Alabama principals, told members no one wanted to cut corners on safety.
âI think I speak for all principals in saying that is not the problem. The problem is to make sure that we do things safely and in a timely manner so that we can use the taxpayer’s money the best for our students, âsaid Ledbetter.
Harris said the states he and the other members of the study group looked at all had some sort of independent oversight of school building projects.
âBecause we’re all human, and they know it and we know it. My people are as good as they come, and we insist on quality workâ¦ whatever you do in Alabama is quality, but we make mistakes, âHarris said. “And so, as he said, when the BCM inspectors come, it helps us.”
Love told ARP after the meeting that he was surprised to hear the request to increase the cap from $ 500,000 to $ 750,000. This request had not been discussed among members before Tuesday’s meeting, he said.
He reiterated his concern that the law does not specify who will be changed when inspecting school construction projects to ensure code compliance.
âI couldn’t understand why they couldn’t answer this question,â Love said, adding that it shouldn’t be the same architects working on these projects, and that it should be an independent review. .
âWe just want to provide security, and I don’t think we’re getting a good, solid answer on how we’re going to get there,â Love said.
The committee is scheduled to meet again on July 19 for a public hearing. The Ivey amendments require the study group to report its findings and any legislative recommendations to the leadership of Ivey, the House and the Senate by December 1, 2021.