The Utah state school board is failing to adequately oversee school construction in the state, allowing Utah school districts to bypass building code and inspection requirements on new projects, state auditors found.
The poor oversight stems, in part, from the Utah State Board of Education’s lack of resources, staff and adequate document management systems, according to a new report from the Legislative Auditor General.
“While [schools] are responsible for their own compliance, USBE has not fulfilled its oversight responsibilities nor enforced compliance according to its authority,” the report states.
The report, presented Tuesday to the Legislative Audit Subcommittee, followed up on an internal audit of school construction in November 2022, which identified several similar issues, according to the report.
“This is very problematic, because we spend a lot of hours here in the Legislature talking about building code requirements,” Utah Senate Minority Leader Luz Escamilla, D-Salt Lake City, said Tuesday as the findings were shared.
As part of the audit, the Legislative Auditor General hired the company Building Code Solutions to independently review five Utah school building projects completed over the past few years to analyze how well districts complied with building codes and legal processes.
Compliance was inconsistent, according to the report, and inspectors identified multiple safety issues and building code violations.
USBE is not enforcing its own procedures
The report called USBE’s current oversight a “rubber stamp,” meaning school construction projects are being approved without adequate verification.
For instance, before any construction can begin, schools are required to submit a preconstruction checklist that USBE is meant to review. Once that is complete, USBE issues a construction permit.
However, the audit found that among 30 construction projects from 2017 to 2024, 87% began work before a permit was issued. Some never received one.
Schools told auditors that USBE hasn’t processed the preconstruction checklists its received in a timely manner and hasn’t generally enforced compliance with the form.
USBE is also responsible for verifying that school building inspections occur, but the state school board currently has “no way to verify that inspections are occurring, outside of trusting a building official’s attestation,” auditors found.
The board employs one school construction specialist, charged with overseeing all projects across the state. That person told auditors they did not “have the tools to adequately enforce compliance.”
“One position is reportedly insufficient to fulfill state requirements,” the report stated.
In many cases, the audit found, monthly building inspection reports were often incomplete and not consistently submitted to USBE.
“These occurrences should trigger enforcement actions,” the report said. ”However, as with the preconstruction process, the state board has never enforced these penalties to encourage compliance.”
Providing an annual training for Utah school building officials is another requirement USBE is failing to meet, according to the report.
“USBE has outsourced this responsibility to the Utah Facilities Operation and Maintenance Association (UFOMA),” auditors wrote. “This association is governed primarily by school district facilities officials and funded primarily by private vendors, which hosts semi-annual conferences.”
According to the report, USBE did not know how many of its officials, if any, have attended the conferences or how often.
Spotty finances
USBE also has inconsistent financial reporting practices when it comes to school construction, auditors found, meaning the actual cost of school construction in the state can’t be accurately determined.
“Because USBE does not require standardization of reported project cost data, state and local policymakers cannot make informed decisions about construction costs in the state,” the report stated.
USBE reports annually on the cost of all construction projects reported to the board, but auditors found those reported costs were based on preconstruction estimates, not actual construction costs “and cannot be relied upon for accurate comparison,” the audit states.
Auditors collected pay applications from each of the state’s 41 school districts for new builds since 2019 to identify a combined reported value of roughly $2.1 billion across 54 construction projects.
“However, due to differences in how [schools] classify construction costs, we were unable to generate useful cost reporting metrics, such as cost per square foot, with any accuracy,” the audit stated.
Auditors emphasized the need for a standardized cost reporting system.
Code violations in new builds
Independent inspectors discovered several code violations in new school buildings, the audit showed.
The findings included missing firewalls; mechanical, plumbing and electrical hazards; and incomplete plan reviews.
The audit noted these, in several instances, presented safety concerns for staff and students.
“Building codes are the minimum requirements to reasonably protect against risks to property, life, and safety,” the report stated. “ When construction projects don’t comply with adopted building codes, these risks increase.”
Auditors also found that many school building officials were either unqualified or inexperienced, with some waiving building code requirements without the qualifications to do so.
Just five of the state’s 41 school district building officials held any sort of building code certification, the report stated.
‘Concerning’ bid process
One school district, which the report did not identify, practiced what auditors described as “questionable” procurement processes that exhibited the “appearance of impropriety.”
Utah code requires districts to bid out all construction projects that exceed $80,000 and award work to the lowest “satisfactory” bidder.
However, this unnamed district worked exclusively with the same contractor on 18 school construction projects since 2014, the report stated. Across those 18 projects, only two bid solicitations were issued.
The district had bundled several millions worth of construction projects together, which is an uncommon practice for large projects, the report stated.
Based on what documentation was available from the district, auditors determined that the contractor seemed to offer services for a much lower price than other bidders, but auditors noted they couldn’t validate that, citing incomplete documentation.
In one instance, auditors found the project’s final cost was much higher than what was bid.
“Other factors such as inflation can understandably increase construction costs,” the report stated. ”Nevertheless, when project costs exceed bid amounts and budgets, the appearance of the district’s almost exclusive use of a single general contractor is concerning.”
The report noted that while auditors “did not establish undue bias nor illegal procurement methods,” the district did violate state document retention policies on some of the projects. District officials told auditors this was due to an “administrative error,” according to the report.
Recommendations and remediation
Auditors made several recommendations to rectify USBE’s lack of oversight, including a suggestion that lawmakers assign regulatory responsibility to a different state agency.
Other recommendations, should USBE keep its oversight role, included enforcing state statute concerning building codes and school construction processes, and outlining clearer expectations for schools to follow.
In a May 9 letter to Auditor General Kade Minchey, State Superintendent Sydnee Dickson wrote that USBE was aware that school construction was “an area of risk within the public education system” based on the 2022 internal audit.
Dickson said the board had been anticipating the new report and collectively responded to its recommendations by proposing an “alternative action” — taking auditors’ findings to board leadership for a discussion, which the board said would happen no later than Aug. 31.
From there, the board will establish a timeline and subsequent steps.
“The alternative action does not represent an objection to the recommendations directed to USBE,” the board’s response read. “The alternative action reflects inclusion of the Utah State Board of Education governing body in policy- and decision-making in collaboration with the Legislature.”