BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1605
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 21, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 1605 (Coto) - As Amended: March 16, 2010
SUBJECT : School facilities: plan review
SUMMARY : Authorizes a local educational agency (LEA) to agree
to pay an additional fee to the Department of General Services
(DGS) for the DGS's cost to employ additional staff to expedite
its review of that LEA's architectural plan if the school
seeking construction or modernization is a low performing
school, as identified by that school's position in the lowest
two deciles of pupil performance in the year immediately
preceding the year that the plan is submitted for review.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Specifies that notwithstanding any other provision of law, an
employee funded by a fee collected pursuant to this bill is
exempt from any furlough implemented by any state agency,
board, or commission.
2)Requires the DGS to complete and return its initial review of
a school construction or modernization plan within 120 days
from the date the plan was submitted by the LEA.
3)Sunsets and repeals the provisions of this bill on January 1,
2017.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires, under the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of
1998, the State Allocation Board (SAB) to allocate to
applicant school districts, prescribed per-unhoused-pupil
state funding for construction and modernization of school
facilities, including hardship funding, and supplemental
funding for site development and acquisition. (Education Code
(EC) 17070.35)
2)Prohibits the SAB from apportioning funds to any school
district unless the applicant school district has certified to
the SAB that it has obtained the written approval of the
California Department of Education (CDE) that the site
selection and the building plans and specifications comply
AB 1605
Page 2
with the standards adopted by the CDE. (EC 17070.50)
3)Prohibits the SAB from apportioning funds to any school
district that has not received approval from the DGS that the
project meets Field Act requirements. (EC 17072.30)
4)Requires the DGS under the police power of the state to
supervise the design and construction of any school building
or the reconstruction or alteration of or addition to any
school building to ensure that plans and specifications comply
with existing law and Title 24 regulations (the California
Building Standards Code). (EC 17280)
5)Requires an application submitted to the DGS for project plan
approval to submit a filing fee in amounts determined by the
DGS based on the estimated cost of the work and according to
the following schedule:
a) For the first $1 million, no more than .7% of the
estimated cost;
b) For all costs in excess of $1 million, no more than .6%
of the estimated cost; and,
c) The minimum fee shall be $250.
6)Authorizes an applicant who submits a plan to the DGS to
choose to use the services of the DGS for the review of the
plan or request that the plan review be performed by one or
more qualified plan review firms. (EC 17303)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : Background . In order to be eligible for state
education bond funds, the School Facility Program requires a LEA
to receive approval from the CDE, to ensure that the selected
site and school specifications are safe and meet the school's
education plan, and the Division of State Architect (DSA) within
the DGS, to ensure that the architectural design plans meet
fire, life and safety requirements; Field Act requirements; and
access requirements under the Americans with Disability Act
specified in law and in state regulations (Title 24/California
Building Standards Code). The DSA, with offices in Sacramento,
Oakland, Los Angeles, and San Diego and satellite offices in
Riverside and Bakersfield, is charged with conducting project
AB 1605
Page 3
plan review, construction oversight, and project close-out
activities. When DSA determines that the project plans comply
with all the necessary building codes and the Field Act, the
school district may proceed to construction of the project. The
DSA reports that over the past five fiscal years, DSA has
annually reviewed, on average, 2,546 K-12 building projects with
an estimated construction cost of $4.5 billion.
The process for approval generally entails submission of project
plans by the school districts with all required fees and
identification of the architect or structural engineer in charge
of the project (the A/E of Record). DSA staff assigns an
application number and reviews the documents to ensure all
required components are included. This is often referred to as
"bin time". DSA states that bin time is usually four to six
weeks; in 2009, bin time was in actuality closer to 12 weeks.
Plan reviews are based on date order of the applications.
Actual plan review time varies according to the size and scope
of the project. Three different DSA staff, usually architects
or engineers, concurrently review the project for structural,
fire/life safety and access compliance. When completed, the
plans are returned to the A/E on record for corrections and a
meeting called "backcheck" is scheduled to review final plans.
Any changes after the final meeting, including during
construction, would require DSA approval. According to DSA, the
timeframe for the project approval depends largely on how long
it takes the A/E to make corrections and schedule the backcheck
meeting.
According to the author, "there is widespread agreement that the
hold-up in school construction projects at the Department of
State Architect is a significant problem in California's efforts
to build and modernize the very best learning situations for our
children. Often, inadequate budgets and staffing contributes to
this problem. There are times when 220 days or longer are taken
to complete an initial review of plans. Considerably more time
is spent in having the plans 'signed off' and allowing school
districts to move to the next stage of the process. These
time-related issues are a major hurdle for school districts
attempting to provide for their students and for the building
industry anxious to build funded projects."
This bill authorizes a LEA with deciles one and two schools to
pay for the cost of employing additional DSA staff to expedite
review of its projects. The bill also requires the DSA to
AB 1605
Page 4
complete and return its initial review of a school construction
and modernization plan within 120 days from the date the plan
was submitted by the LEA.
Last year, the DGS, under order by the Governor to expedite
reviews of construction ready projects to stimulate the economy,
ordered the DSA to prioritize review of projects that would not
be seeking state education bond funds. State-funded projects
would require additional time. In January, the DGS announced
its intention to reevaluate all processes in an effort to
stimulate jobs and the economy. The DGS announced that DSA will
1) work to reduce bin time from 12 weeks to six weeks; 2) put in
place an action plan to expedite plan reviews; and 3) adopt
performance metrics to improve the operating efficiency and
effectiveness of the office. Some believe that the action was
in response to complaints about how long it takes to get
projects approved.
Existing options . AB 162 (Leslie), Chapter 407, Statutes of
2006, established a collaborative process for project
development and review whereby a district can choose to work
with the DSA early in the project development to identify and
avoid any major changes and problems throughout the process.
The theory is that working collaboratively from the starting
point of the project will reduce the timeframe for the approval
process.
DSA reports that the collaborative process has already shown
some success in reducing approval times. In a report to the
Legislature, the DSA reported the following average number of
days for DSA plan review (which does not include applicant
response time or backcheck):
---------------------------------------------------------
| Estimated Cost of | Collaborative | Traditional |
|Project Construction | Projects | Projects |
| |(ave. # of days) |(ave. # of days) |
|---------------------+-----------------+-----------------|
| | | |
| $5-$10 million | 68 | 98 |
|---------------------+-----------------+-----------------|
| | | |
| $10-$20 million | 85 | 103 |
|---------------------+-----------------+-----------------|
| | | |
AB 1605
Page 5
| $20-$50 million | 102 | 118 |
|---------------------+-----------------+-----------------|
| | | |
| > $50 million | 98 |138 |
---------------------------------------------------------
Existing law also authorizes an applicant to request that the
plan review be performed by one or more plan review firms
authorized by the DSA. A qualified plan review firm is an
individual, firm, or building official of a city, county, or a
city and county, or the authorized representative of the
building official that is identified by the DGS as having
appropriate expertise and knowledge of school building
requirements. Upon completing the review, the qualified plan
review firm submits the documents and the results of the review
to the DGS. Existing law already authorizes the DGS to contract
for assistance from qualified plan review firms, employ
additional staff on a temporary basis, or allow staff to work
overtime as the DGS deems necessary.
This provision may be duplicative of existing options. Concerns
have also been raised that allowing a LEA to fund additional
staff to expedite its project review would result in wealthier
districts being able to get in line for funding earlier than
cast-strapped and financial hardship districts, which raises
equity issues. The School Facility Program requires CDE and DSA
approval when applications are submitted for funding. The
ability to obtain a DSA approval first means the ability to get
in line for funding first. This is especially important when
there is a limited supply of bond funds for the construction of
schools. Additionally, the cost for employing additional staff
far exceeds the required filing fee of .7% of the estimated cost
of the project. Should LEAs have to pay exponentially more to
get project approval when state law already directs the DGS to
expedite projects by hiring additional staff or paying overtime?
Staff recommends deleting this provision.
This bill requires the DSA to complete its initial review of a
school construction or modernization plan within 120 days from
the date the plan was submitted. According to the DGS, actual
reviews by DSA staff are not time consuming. Establishing time
requirements will help ensure that projects are reviewed in a
timely manner. Staff recommends establishing timelines that
differentiate projects based on their estimated costs and
establishing two levels at 90 days for projects under $20
AB 1605
Page 6
million and 120 days for projects over $20 million.
This bill exempts DSA staff hired pursuant to this bill from
mandatory furloughs. This provision may not be necessary if the
Governor's proposal to end mandatory furlough in June and
instead impose salary cuts is enacted. If the mandatory
furloughs are not terminated, staff recommends exempting all DSA
employees and not just the employees hired pursuant to this
bill.
This bill sunsets on January 1, 2017. Staff recommends
requiring the DGS to submit a report to the Senate and Assembly
Education committees by January 1, 2016 on the average days for
initial reviews for projects approved beginning January 1, 2011.
The Coalition for Adequate School Housing and the Small School
Districts' Association oppose the provision allowing a LEA to
pay the cost of staff to expedite review due to the disadvantage
to lower wealth and small districts.
Related legislation . The introduced version of SB 1227 (Runner)
transferred the duties of the DGS with regard to design and
construction of school buildings, as defined to include
buildings used for elementary, secondary, and community college
purposes, to the building department of the appropriate local
jurisdiction. Recent amendment authorizes the DSA to refer a
plan to a qualified plan review firm as it deems appropriate.
This bill is scheduled for the Senate Education Committee's
April 21, 2010 hearing.
Previous related legislation . AB 162 (Leslie), Chapter 407,
Statutes of 2006, establishes a voluntary alternative
collaborative design plan review and approval process for the
construction of community college and kindergarten and grades 1
- 12 (K-12) school facilities.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
Professional Engineers in California Government
Opposition
AB 1605
Page 7
Coalition for Adequate School Housing
Small School Districts' Association
Analysis Prepared by : Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087