Copyright© 2007 by School Services of California, Inc.

                                      Volume 20                   For Publication Date: July 6, 2007             No. 15

Ask SSC . . . 

What Happened to the Field Act Exemption for Community Colleges? 

Q.     My understanding was that Proposition 1D included language that gave community college construction projects an exemption from the Field Act. However, now I hear that this is not the case. Which is it? 

A.     The answer is not a simple one. You are correct in that Assembly Bill 127 (Chapter 35/2006), the implementing legislation for the Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 1D), added Section 81052 to the Education Code affecting community colleges, which states: 

                  “Each school building constructed, reconstructed, modified, or expanded after July 1, 2006, on a community college campus shall be built according to the Field Act, as defined in Section 81130.3, or according to the California Building Standards Code [CBSC], as adopted by the California Building Standards Commission.”

         Up until the enactment of this language, community college construction projects were required to comply with the inspections and standards of the Field Act, which are more stringent than for compliance with the CBSC. Field Act compliance requires, for example, that structural engineers at the Division of the State Architect (DSA) review and approve the project plans and that a DSA-certified inspector continuously inspect the project during the construction phase to ensure compliance.  

         The enactment of Proposition 1D by the voters, then, had the effect of providing community colleges with the option of compliance with the CBSC, and the intent of the language was to streamline the process for community colleges and exempt their construction projects from the Department of General Services (DGS) and DSA approval process. However, subsequent to the passage of Proposition 1D, the Department of General Services issued a legal opinion that the community colleges must continue to submit their project plans and specifications to the DSA for approval, whether under the Field Act or the CBSC.   

         Senate Bill 588 (Runner, R-Antelope Valley) was introduced to clarify the intent of this language in Proposition 1D, and to allow the community colleges to develop policies and procedures to implement the language and report on this to the Legislature. This work is already underway—a working group has already been established, which includes community college facility leaders and a number of consultants. SB 588 has moved to the Assembly for consideration. 

         The bottom line is that there is disagreement about exactly what the language enacted by Proposition 1D means, but there are solutions in the works that hopefully will provide a resolution to this within the next few months. Until then, the old rules still apply. 

—Sheila G. Vickers