BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1605
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 12, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1605 (Coto) - As Amended: April 27, 2010
Policy Committee: Education
Vote:9-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill exempts an employee funded by a state school
construction program filing fee from any furlough implemented by
any state, agency, board, or commission in order to facilitate a
faster review of state school construction plans, as specified.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the Department of General Services (DGS) to complete
and return its initial review of a school construction or
modernization plan according to the following: (a) for a
project with an estimated cost of less than $20 million, 120
days from the date the local education agency (LEA) submitted
the plan; and (b) for a project with an estimated cost of $20
million or more, 90 days from the date the LEA submitted the
plan.
2)Sunsets these provisions on January 1, 2017.
3)Requires DGS, by January 1, 2016, to submit a report to the
Assembly and Senate Education committees on the average number
of days to complete the initial review of plans submitted
after January 1, 2011.
FISCAL EFFECT
GF administrative costs of at least $3.5 million to DGS to
comply with the timelines for initial review of school
construction and modernization plans, as specified. DGS reports
approximately 35% of initial plans submitted for review are
incomplete and have to be sent back to school districts for
completion. Likewise, it takes approximately 51 days for school
AB 1605
Page 2
districts to return the completed plans to DGS. As a result,
for school districts who initially submit incomplete plans, the
timelines in the bill are problematic.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . The School Facility Program provides state funding
assistance for two major types of facility construction
projects: new construction and modernization. The process for
accessing the state assistance for funding for these two types
of construction projects is divided into two steps: an
application for eligibility, and application for funding.
Existing law requires all proposed public school construction
and modernization projects to be approved by the Division of
State Architect (DSA) located with DGS. DSA reviews
architectural plans for compliance with the Field Act (seismic
safety); fire, life and safety requirements, and
specifications under the Americans with Disability Act. It
also reviews projects for compliance with the California
Building Standards code, as specified. Once the plans are
reviewed and approved LEAs may proceed with the project.
According to DSA, it has reviewed 2,546 K-12 building projects
annually over the last five fiscal years.
According to the author, "There is widespread agreement that
the hold-up in school construction projects at DSA 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. 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 exempts an employee funded by a state school
construction program filing fee from any furlough implemented
by any state, agency, board, or commission in order to
facilitate a faster review of state school construction plans,
as specified. It also requires DSG to review plans with
specified timelines.
2)AB 162 (Leslie), Chapter 407, Statutes of 2006 established a
voluntary alternative collaborative design plan review and
AB 1605
Page 3
approval process for the construction of community college and
K-12 school facilities. The purpose of Chapter 407 was to
reduce approval time for construction projects. Specifically,
if an LEA or community college worked collaboratively with DSA
prior to submission of the plan, DSA does not need as much
time for review because it is already familiar with the
project.
According to a DSA report to the Legislature, approval times
for plans with a cost of less than $20 million submitted under
the collaborative process were reduced by approximately 20
days. For plans with a cost of more than $20 million, the
approval times were reduced by an average of 30 days.
3)State employee furloughs . In response to last year's budget
and cash crisis, the governor issued an executive order
requiring mandatory furloughs of two days per month beginning
in February 2009, and a second order upping the furloughs to
three days per month beginning in July of 2009. Since the July
implementation, many state departments, boards, and
commissions have been ordered closed three days per month,
while others are permitted to put employees on a self-directed
furlough program.
Furloughs are scheduled to conclude on June 30, 2010 and the
governor has proposed alternative employee compensation
related savings in 2010-11 (5% pay reduction, 5% increase in
employee contributions to retirement, and 5% departmental
reductions).
Certain departments have received exemptions from the furlough
program. These include the California Highway Patrol and 911
Dispatchers, the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
(during fire season), and the Public Utilities Commission.
DGS has not been exempted from the furlough program.
This bill exempts an employee funded by a state school
construction program filing fee from any furlough implemented
by any state, agency, board, or commission in order to
facilitate a faster review of state school construction plans,
as specified. The committee may wish to consider whether it
is appropriate to take a piecemeal approach to furlough
AB 1605
Page 4
exemptions. There are many fee supported positions in state
government. The State Controller estimates approximately
69,500 state employees are paid from non-GF sources.
4)Related legislation . SB 29 X8 (Steinberg) exempted state
civil service employees from being furloughed if employed in
positions funded at least 95 % by sources other than the GF.
The governor vetoed this measure in March 2010 with the
following message:
"It is necessary to apply furloughs across the board, with
limited exemptions as needed to protect public health and
safety, to effectively manage the workforce, and to avoid
inequities and morale problems for state employees. Further,
this bill as written would be difficult, if not impossible to
implement. Many positions are funded through multiple funding
sources and as such it is not always possible to determine if
they are funded at least 95 percent by sources other than the
General Fund.
Finally, this bill would limit the ability of future Governors
to implement furloughs during a fiscal emergency. It is
imperative that Governors have maximum flexibility to address
such emergencies. As this is a matter presently before the
courts, attempts to legislatively limit Governors' furlough
authority are premature until a final judgment has been made."
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081