BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 1271
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 27, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
SB 1271 (Corbett) - As Amended: May 25, 2012
SENATE VOTE : 30-9
SUBJECT : School facilities: Field Act: seismic safety:
workgroup
SUMMARY : Requires the Department of General Services (DGS) to
convene a workgroup to develop and adopt recommendations for
improving the oversight of school construction projects.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes declarations and findings regarding the number of
earthquakes in California and the deficiencies of the Division
of State Architects (DSA) in overseeing the construction of
school facility projects and ensuring that they meet seismic
safety requirements under the Field Act.
2)Requires the workgroup to review both of the following:
a) Changes made internal to the DSA to improve its
oversight of school construction projects since December
2011. The workgroup shall make any recommendations it
determines are necessary to further improve oversight,
process, training, and inspection activities under the
control of the DSA concerning school facility construction
and seismic, fire, and life safety; and,
b) The Field Act, as it relates to occupancy of school
facilities, to consider what, if any, statutory changes
should be made to prohibit occupancy when and if
significant safety concerns are identified, and what, if
any, penalties the DSA should be able to levy against
school districts that do not provide all required
documents.
3)Specifies that in convening the workgroup, the department
shall adapt or alter an existing advisory board or committee
or combine existing advisory boards or committees so that the
workgroup contains, but is not necessarily limited to,
representatives from all of the following:
SB 1271
Page 2
a) The DSA;
b) The Superintendent of Public Instruction;
c) The Seismic Safety Commission;
d) The State Fire Marshal;
e) School districts that represent the diverse size and
geography of California's school districts;
f) The Office of the Chancellor of the California Community
Colleges; and,
g) A community college district.
4)Requires the DSA to report the recommendations of the
workgroup, including, but not limited to, any actions taken by
the DSA to modify its oversight of school construction
projects to the Senate Select Committee on Earthquake and
Disaster Preparedness, Response and Recovery by January 1,
2014, at a public hearing of the committee. Requires the
Senate Select Committee on Earthquake and Disaster
Preparedness, Response and Recovery to provide an opportunity
for public comment before proposing statutory changes
recommended by the workgroup.
5)Repeals the provisions of this bill on January 1, 2016, and as
of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that
is enacted before January 1, 2016, deletes or extends that
date.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires, under the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of
1998, the State Allocation Board 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.
2)Requires the DSA, 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).
3)Requires public school buildings to meet pupil safety
performance standards pursuant to the Field Act.
SB 1271
Page 3
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, $70,000 - $100,000 in DGS staffing costs to complete
the reviews and recommendations. The Committee also notes that
the workgroup recommendations are likely to result in cost
pressure to make changes to school safety related processes, and
to provide funding for seismic upgrades for existing schools and
more extensive (and expensive) requirements for future school
construction projects.
COMMENTS : Background . Since 1998, voters have approved $35.429
billion for the construction and rehabilitation of K-12 school
facilities through Propositions 1A (1998), 47 (2002), 55 (2004),
and 1D (2006). In order to be eligible for state education bond
funds, the School Facility Program requires a local educational
agency to receive approval from the California Department of
Education (CDE), to ensure that the selected site and school
specifications are safe and meet the school's education plan,
and the DSA, 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.
The Field Act, named after the author of the bill establishing
the Act, Assemblymember C. Don Field, was enacted in 1933 after
an earthquake in Long Beach. The Act authorized the State
Architect to develop a statewide building code to make all
buildings, especially school buildings, safe from earthquakes.
The Act has been strengthened since then and California's public
schools are commonly considered to be the safest public
buildings in the state.
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.
Project closeout . When construction is completed and no later
than six months after the building is occupied, DSA initiates
the project closeout phase to determine if the project has
complied with all school construction codes and regulations.
Project closeout consists of examination of specific project
files for documents required to be submitted before, during and
after construction and to determine if outstanding issues have
been resolved. Upon conclusion of the review, the project file
is closed either with or without certification.
Closure with certification : The DSA grants a "Final
SB 1271
Page 4
Certification of Construction" when the following has occurred:
1) All construction is completed and verified;
2) All required documentation is received and verified by
the DSA; and,
3) The required fee, adjusted for final construction costs
(including change orders), is received by the DSA.
Closure without certification : The DSA closes out the project
without issuing the "Final Certification of Construction" due to
the following:
1) Required fees were not paid;
2) The project's documentation is incomplete; and,
3) The DSA's inspection discovers problems with the
construction that are not adequately addressed.
This bill requires the DGS, which oversees the DSA, to convene a
workgroup to develop and adopt recommendations for improving the
oversight of school construction projects. Specifically, the
workgroup is required to review the following:
1)Changes made internally to improve DSA's oversight of school
construction projects since December 2011. The workgroup is
also required to make recommendations it determines are
necessary to further improve oversight, process, training, and
inspection activities under the control of the DSA.
2)The Field Act, as it relates to occupancy of school
facilities, to consider what, if any, statutory changes should
be made to prohibit occupancy when and if significant safety
concerns are identified, and what, if any, penalties the DSA
should be able to levy against school district that do not
provide all required documents.
The DSA has been the subject of stakeholder, legislative and
media criticisms over the last few years. Concerns have been
expressed that the process for review is lengthy and that the
four regional offices do not have consistent policies. The
problems with the DSA were exacerbated by media stories
highlighting the large number of projects that have not been
SB 1271
Page 5
certified and the suggestion that some school buildings are
unsafe.
Audit . In 2011, the Legislature requested the Bureau of State
Audit (BSA) to conduct an audit of the DSA. The BSA issued its
first report in December 2011 and the second report in May 2012.
Some of the findings include:
1)While the DSA must certify school construction projects when
they comply with the act, as of December 2010 approximately
16,400 projects statewide remained uncertified.
2)Statewide, 23% of projects closed in the last three fiscal
years remain uncertified.
3)The DSA inconsistently used its authority to order districts
to stop work on projects after identifying a potential threat
to public safety.
4)The DSA did not effectively document its determinations about
the risk level of uncertified projects or to use these
determinations to guide its approach to following up on those
projects.
5)The DSA's level of oversight of school construction processes
is not comprehensive-of 24 projects reviewed, three did not
have evidence of any site visits by its field engineers and
eight had evidence of only one site visit.
6)Although districts must submit inspectors for approval prior
to construction, for 22 of 34 projects reviewed, the DSA did
not approve the inspectors until after construction began.
7)The DSA does not provide the same level of construction
oversight for fire and life safety and accessibility as it
does for structural safety even though it reviews plans for
all three disciplines.
The BSA made a number of recommendations to address the
findings. The DSA is required to submit status reports at 60
days, six months and one year intervals to the BSA indicating
whether and how it has responded to the BSA's recommendations.
The DSA reports that the 16,400 projects that were closed
without certification have been reviewed and that there are now
50 projects remaining with "potential" life/safety issues. Some
of the responses in DSA's six month report to the BSA include
the following:
1)Notification letters were sent to districts with uncertified
projects on June 1st, reminding them of the projects that are
uncertified and informing them of the missing items (e.g.,
SB 1271
Page 6
documents, test results, fees) required to certify the
projects.
2)The DSA is exploring implementation of an "inspection card"
system similar to a process used by local governments that
will require each element of construction to be reviewed and
certified by the project inspector with all relevant special
inspections documented prior to being granted permission to
proceed with the next step of construction.
3)The DSA has modified its practices regarding use of Orders to
Comply and Stop Work Orders to ensure consistent use among DSA
regional offices.
4)Regarding inspections, the DSA indicates that it is finalizing
a policy which requires all Project Class 1(non-wood) and 2
(wood) projects be regularly visited by its field engineers,
which will include a face-to-face meeting with project
inspectors. All new construction projects will have at least
one documented visit by a field engineer with an overall
objective that ongoing projects be visited at four to six week
intervals.
5)Regarding qualification of inspectors, the DSA's Certification
Unit has updated its written policies for inspector
certification to strengthen its processes not excusing
inspectors from required training and improve its internal
identification of expired exam scores.
Composition of the workgroup . The bill requires the DGS to
adapt or alter an existing advisory board or committee or
combine existing advisory boards or committees so that the
workgroup contains, but is not necessarily limited to,
representatives from the list identified in the fourth paragraph
in the summary section of the analysis. The DSA, under the
California Building Standards Administrative Code, already has
the authority to appoint advisory bodies. Given all the
controversies and the spotlight the DSA has been in, the new
State Architect, Chet Widom, appointed by Governor Brown in
December 2011, has convened the following three committees to
focus on and develop improvements to the processes and the
enforcement of the Field Act; fire, life, and safety; and
accessibility: 1) Code and Standards; 2) Inspecting and
Testing; and 3) Project Delivery.
Based on information provided by the DGS, it appears that the
membership of the committees include all the representatives
specified in the bill with the exception of a representative
from the Office of the Chancellor of the California Community
SB 1271
Page 7
Colleges. The State Architect's intention is to have the
committees complete their work by August and begin
implementation of the committees' recommendations by December,
2012.
Reporting . This bill requires the DSA to report the
recommendations of the workgroup, including, but not limited to,
any actions taken by the DSA to modify its oversight of school
construction projects to the Senate Select Committee on
Earthquake and Disaster Preparedness, Response and Recovery by
January 1, 2014, at a public hearing of the committee. The bill
further requires the Select Committee to provide an opportunity
for public comment before proposing statutory changes
recommended by the workgroup. While the Senate Select Committee
is a natural fit to hear and deliberate the findings and
recommendations of the workgroup, Senate and Assembly policy
committees including the Education Committees are also
appropriate bodies to review the recommendations. Staff
recommends requiring a report to also be submitted to
appropriate Senate and Assembly policy committees.
Findings and declarations . Staff recommends revising the
findings and declarations section to more appropriately
attribute the findings to the BSA audit.
Technical amendment . Staff recommends changing the reference to
"department", on page 3, line 34, which, in the Education Code,
means the CDE, to the "Department of General Services".
The bill sunsets on January 1, 2016 even though the DSA is
required to report to the Select Committee by January 1, 2014.
Staff recommends changing the sunset to January 1, 2015.
Is this bill necessary ? Given that the State Architect has
already established advisory committees; the BSA has released
two reports with recommendations and the DSA is responding to
those recommendations; and the Senate Select Committee, chaired
by the author of this bill, or the Senate and Assembly Education
Committees can hold hearings without the enactment of a bill,
the Committee may wish to consider whether this bill is
necessary.
Arguments in support . The California Community College League
of California states, "The Field Act is highly-regulated and
rigid, while construction materials and processes continually
SB 1271
Page 8
change. Some of these changes may be functionally and fiscally
more efficient and appropriate than current methods and
standards. SB 1271 will allow the best possible regulations and
standards to be upgraded and put into place."
The Coalition for Adequate School Housing (C.A.S.H.) has a
support if amended position on the bill and expresses concerns
with the bill's requirement that the workgroup review occupancy
provisions within the Field Act. C.A.S.H. states that it is
"opposed to any penalty that would deny beneficial occupancy of
a school at construction completion prior to receipt of
certification: the extensive, complicated, and expensive nature
of school project site and plan approval borne at the local
level, the continuous and robust nature of the oversight and
inspection during the construction process at the local level,
and the final responsibility and ultimate liability of the
school district for the project in total dictates that the full
authority for occupancy must continue to reside with the school
district, not a state agency." C.A.S.H. also requests the
addition of a structural engineer and a school architect on the
workgroup.
Prior related bill . AB 1099 (Fuller) of 2009, would have
eliminated specified requirements to closeout a school facility
project with the DSA. The bill was held by the author in the
Senate.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Construction Inspectors Association
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO
California Coalition of Professional Construction Inspectors
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Coalition for Adequate School Housing (if amended)
Community College League of California
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087
SB 1271
Page 9