Tag: California Council

AIACC 2012 Legislative Agenda

by .
in: Government Affairs / 2 Comments

With the Legislature coming back to Sacramento in January to begin the second year of the 2011-12 Session, AIACC staff is working to develop our 2012 legislative agenda.

The agenda was adopted by The AIACC Board of Directors at the November Board meeting, after considering recommendations made by the Advocacy Advisory Committee (AAC). In making its recommendations to the Board, the AAC reviewed the results of the annual member survey for advocacy ideas.

The Agenda consists of the following four proposals:

Indemnification
The AIACC will attempt to have legislation introduced to limit the obligation of design professionals to indemnify and defend clients to damages caused by negligent acts by the design professional.

This is an issue that comes up repeatedly in the advocacy survey, and in private communications with members and attorneys.

Clients, particularly public clients, are insisting that architects sign contracts that contain uninsurable indemnification and duty to defend clauses; they are presented as a ‘take it or leave it’ contract. Some of these contract clauses essentially turn the architectural firm into a legal services insurance company for the client. These types of contracts put the very existence of an architectural firm in jeopardy.

AIACC staff is working with several attorneys who represent, advise, and defend AIA members to develop meaningful and effective language.

This will not be an easy effort. To improve our chance of success, the AIACC will ask its members to participate in an aggressive grassroots campaign in support of the bill.

Qualifications Based Selection
The Board instructed AIACC staff to investigate the concept of including language in the Architects Practice Act to prohibit architects from providing a fee during the selection phase of public works, and to sponsor legislation if the idea is feasible.

QBS Violations – the asking for a fee during the selection phase of public works – are an ongoing and growing concern of the membership. AIACC staff increasingly is hearing from members that public clients are asking for fees during the selection phase and either selecting based upon the low fee, or demanding the highest ranked firm to match the lowest fee.

Given the economy and the politics of this issue, an effort to directly address this issue by improving the QBS statute is unlikely to succeed. This proposal is a different approach to reach the same goal: stopping the use of fees during the selection phase.

It would give the architect the ability to say “I am violating the law if I provide a fee, and will be subject to disciplinary measures by the California Architects Board if I provide a fee.” It is not intended to harm the architect, though that could happen if an architect does provide a fee during the selection phase, the same as an architect who provides services without a written contract.

AIACC staff is investigating similar laws in other states.

Continuing Education
The Board voted to support giving the California Architects Board (CAB) the authority to require a broad-based health, safety, and welfare continuing education requirement, much like what is required in 40+ other states.

In response to the law that requires architects to take continuing education in disability access – a response to the line of mandated continuing education being crossed – the Board has for several years supported giving the CAB this authority. The Board believes this will give the CAB greater control of mandated continuing education, and make it harder for an outside group to use the Legislature to require another topic-specific requirement.

The AIACC sponsored legislation in 2010 to give the CAB this authority, and the bill passed the Legislature without a single “No” vote. However, that bill was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.

The Board’s approval this year was made with awareness that Governor Brown appears to also oppose mandated continuing education. Governor Brown recently vetoed a continuing education bill, and in his veto message he wrote:

This bill would make license renewal for court reporters contingent on continuing education. The whole idea of legally mandated “continuing education” is suspect in my mind. Professionals already are motivated to hone their skills or risk not getting business.

Requiring them to pay fees to “continuing education providers” is an unwarranted burden.

Thus, at the Board’s direction, AIACC staff will communicate with the Governor’s office between now and early next year to determine if the Governor will see a requirement for architects to take continuing education on HSW topics as a natural and logical extension of the purpose of licensure: to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

California Environmental Quality Act
The AIACC will create a task force of architects and others, chaired by Mark Hornberger, FAIA, to develop proposals to reform the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If workable proposals are developed in time, the AIACC will attempt to get those proposals introduced as legislation next year.

This proposal is made in recognition that CEQA reform is not an easy endeavor, and that others have tried several times before, with limited or no success. Nevertheless, AIA members in both the advocacy survey and personal communication indicate the abuse of CEQA, specifically by those with an agenda that is not related to the environmental impacts of a project, are harming both the economy and CEQA itself.

There exists some political will to consider CEQA reform in the Legislature, and the task force will allow the AIACC be prepared to be a part of that conversation.

Click here to review The AIACC’s Capitol Forum’s white paper on CEQA reform.

If you have any questions about any of these initiatives or the AIACC’s Legislative Agenda, contact Mark Christian.

 

AIACC 2012 Legislative Agenda

by .
in: Advocacy Issues / 0 Comments

With the Legislature coming back to Sacramento in January to begin the second year of the 2011-12 Session, AIACC staff is working to develop our 2012 legislative agenda.

The agenda was adopted by The AIACC Board of Directors at the November Board meeting, after considering recommendations made by the Advocacy Advisory Committee (AAC). In making its recommendations to the Board, the AAC reviewed the results of the annual member survey for advocacy ideas.

The Agenda consists of the following four proposals:

Indemnification
The AIACC will attempt to have legislation introduced to limit the obligation of design professionals to indemnify and defend clients to damages caused by negligent acts by the design professional.

This is an issue that comes up repeatedly in the advocacy survey, and in private communications with members and attorneys.

Clients, particularly public clients, are insisting that architects sign contracts that contain uninsurable indemnification and duty to defend clauses; they are presented as a ‘take it or leave it’ contract. Some of these contract clauses essentially turn the architectural firm into a legal services insurance company for the client. These types of contracts put the very existence of an architectural firm in jeopardy.

AIACC staff is working with several attorneys who represent, advise, and defend AIA members to develop meaningful and effective language.

This will not be an easy effort. To improve our chance of success, the AIACC will ask its members to participate in an aggressive grassroots campaign in support of the bill.

Qualifications Based Selection
The Board instructed AIACC staff to investigate the concept of including language in the Architects Practice Act to prohibit architects from providing a fee during the selection phase of public works, and to sponsor legislation if the idea is feasible.

QBS Violations – the asking for a fee during the selection phase of public works – are an ongoing and growing concern of the membership. AIACC staff increasingly is hearing from members that public clients are asking for fees during the selection phase and either selecting based upon the low fee, or demanding the highest ranked firm to match the lowest fee.

Given the economy and the politics of this issue, an effort to directly address this issue by improving the QBS statute is unlikely to succeed. This proposal is a different approach to reach the same goal: stopping the use of fees during the selection phase.

It would give the architect the ability to say “I am violating the law if I provide a fee, and will be subject to disciplinary measures by the California Architects Board if I provide a fee.” It is not intended to harm the architect, though that could happen if an architect does provide a fee during the selection phase, the same as an architect who provides services without a written contract.

AIACC staff is investigating similar laws in other states.

Continuing Education
The Board voted to support giving the California Architects Board (CAB) the authority to require a broad-based health, safety, and welfare continuing education requirement, much like what is required in 40+ other states.

In response to the law that requires architects to take continuing education in disability access – a response to the line of mandated continuing education being crossed – the Board has for several years supported giving the CAB this authority. The Board believes this will give the CAB greater control of mandated continuing education, and make it harder for an outside group to use the Legislature to require another topic-specific requirement.

The AIACC sponsored legislation in 2010 to give the CAB this authority, and the bill passed the Legislature without a single “No” vote. However, that bill was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.

The Board’s approval this year was made with awareness that Governor Brown appears to also oppose mandated continuing education. Governor Brown recently vetoed a continuing education bill, and in his veto message he wrote:

This bill would make license renewal for court reporters contingent on continuing education. The whole idea of legally mandated “continuing education” is suspect in my mind. Professionals already are motivated to hone their skills or risk not getting business.

Requiring them to pay fees to “continuing education providers” is an unwarranted burden.

Thus, at the Board’s direction, AIACC staff will communicate with the Governor’s office between now and early next year to determine if the Governor will see a requirement for architects to take continuing education on HSW topics as a natural and logical extension of the purpose of licensure: to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

California Environmental Quality Act
The AIACC will create a task force of architects and others, chaired by Mark Hornberger, FAIA, to develop proposals to reform the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If workable proposals are developed in time, the AIACC will attempt to get those proposals introduced as legislation next year.

This proposal is made in recognition that CEQA reform is not an easy endeavor, and that others have tried several times before, with limited or no success. Nevertheless, AIA members in both the advocacy survey and personal communication indicate the abuse of CEQA, specifically by those with an agenda that is not related to the environmental impacts of a project, are harming both the economy and CEQA itself.

There exists some political will to consider CEQA reform in the Legislature, and the task force will allow the AIACC be prepared to be a part of that conversation.

Click here to review The AIACC’s Capitol Forum’s white paper on CEQA reform.

If you have any questions about any of these initiatives or the AIACC’s Legislative Agenda, contact Mark Christian.

 

Los Angeles Mayor Calls for Sales Tax on Services and Changes to Proposition 13

by .
in: Government Affairs / 2 Comments

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, in a speech before the Sacramento Press Club in August, called on progressives to think big and invest in our economy and public education. His widely reported comments stated the investment in our economy and schools requires new revenue, and that government needs to “test the voltage in some of these so-called ‘third rail’ issues, beginning with Proposition 13.”

Villaraigosa, calling Proposition 13 a “corporate tax give-away” to commercial property owners, believes the time has come to remove commercial property from Proposition 13 and limiting its protection to homeowners.

What was not reported in the press was Villaraigosa’s call for a sales tax on services, saying it can generate as much as $28 billion. “It’s crazy that we are taxing donuts and not lawyers” Villaraigosa said.

Over the years there have been several proposals to enact a sales tax on services, and at least two government commissions that have recommended some type of sales or receipt tax on services, saying such a tax is needed to update California’s tax system to reflect the modern economy.

The AIACC fully expects the call to tax services will continue to be made by politically credible voices, and at some point it will be considered by the Legislature as a part of a “tax reform” proposal. AIA Members have consistently stated their opposition to a sales tax on services, and the AIACC has consistently opposed all efforts to enact such a tax.

What is your opinion on the call to change Proposition 13 so that its protection does not apply to commercial property? Has the time arrived to remove commercial property from Proposition 13? Or should Proposition remain unchanged? Let us know with your comments.

 

To bid, or not to bid. Was that a question?

by .
in: Advocacy Issues / 4 Comments

Qualifications Based Selection (QBS) laws were created to provide public owners the best available design professional services for the taxpayer’s money. It is an objective and fair process, and when well documented the process lends itself to the public’s scrutiny. However, many public owners no longer subscribe to the law as it is written, choosing instead to find clever ways of splitting hairs to subvert the law and extract fees from responding architects and engineers .

At one time, with little exception, this straightforward and easy to implement process was the method used by public agencies for design profession selection. However, in November 2000 a statewide ballot initiative – Proposition 35 – titled: Public Works Projects. Use Of Private Contractors For Engineering And Architectural Services – was passed. Proposition 35 amended Article XXII of the California Constitution and added Government Code Section 4529.12 which states:

“All architectural and engineering services shall be procured pursuant to a fair, competitive selection process which prohibits governmental agency employees from participating in the selection process when they have a financial or business relationship with any private entity seeking the contract, and the procedure shall require compliance with all laws regarding political contributions, conflicts of interest or unlawful activities.”

Before long various public agencies, seizing on the term “competitive selection process” as found in the newly created Government Code Section 4529.12, began requiring architects and engineers responding to a Request For Proposal (RFP) to include their service fees for the project as a mandatory condition for further consideration. To do so would mean, in essence, design professionals would have to choose between bidding on the project, and to not do so would mean disqualification for failure to meet the RFP requirement criteria; a Hobson’s choice.

The obvious problem and concern with this approach to design professional selection is that unlike the construction phase of the project, which can be competitively bid because a set of plans exists on which bids are based, there are no such plans or specifications during the procurement phase on which to base design fees. At this stage, beyond the project owner’s thoughts and concepts, no one really knows what the project will entail. When design firms are required to submit time and fee proposals with little scope of work information, the proposals are not really comparable. Each proposal submitted may be based on a different set of assumptions. Additionally, once a fee is included, there is a strong tendency for the agency to look at the bottom line figure, and for the fee to have an undue and often decisive weight in the selection decision.

Not only does this approach place the client and the design professional in an adversarial relationship, it can also lead to confusion, disruption and the potential for a failed project – none of which we, as professionals, should stand-by and allow to occur.

The Council’s QBS education and enforcement efforts greatly depend on the assistance of members. Each month, the AIACC receives, and responds to, a number of RFP’s/RFQ’s that violate Qualifications Based Selection (QBS) law by illegally using fee as part of the selection process in hiring an architect for a public project. These RFP’s/RFQ’s are issued mostly by local agencies and school districts that are either unaware of QBS law, or simply choose to ignore it. Our efforts to educate and convince public agencies to repeal and correct illegal RFP’s vary in success due to a number of circumstances.

Undoubtedly, the troubled economy is encouraging this type of behavior; with the goal of reducing soft costs, agencies issuing illegal RFP’s/RFQ’s can taking advantage of the limited amount of potential projects available, forcing architects willing – and in many instances needing – to respond to remain in business. And that’s not much of a choice. How are you responding to these?

 

AIACC Members Monitor the Community College Chancellor’s Office

by .
in: AIACC / 0 Comments

The AIA California Council keeps a constant, watchful eye on issues that affect the practice of architecture and the built environment, and it has a successful track record for effectiveness in advocacy on behalf of the profession. AIACC’s strength and ability to protect and promote our profession comes directly from our members. Through members of the State Action Liaison Committee (SALC), we monitor and maintain direct contact with California State Agencies that have direct or indirect impact on the practice of architecture. This is the first in a series of updates from one of the 13 agencies we monitor on your behalf.

California Community College Chancellor’s Office
The College Finance and Facilities Planning Division oversees the formulation of policies that determine the distribution of local assistance and capital outlay funds for the 72 community college districts. They oversee the construction and remodeling of new buildings and centers, and they use web-based tools to assess facilities, coordinate planning, and evaluate and manage projects efficiently. Doug Patterson, AIA, SALC liaision recently met with Fred Harris, Assistant Vice Chancelor, to identify issues of concern and opportunities for collaboration with the architectural profession.

Project Close-out with DSA – how can AIACC assist the CCCCO, the 72 Community College Districts, and their members to support and advance DSA project closeout activities?

Statewide Education Bond
$37B is needed for California’s Community Colleges over the next 10 years based on a facilities “needs” analysis. How can the AIACC support the next Statewide Education Bond measure?

Coordination with CCFC – California Community College Facilities Coalition
This is an organizational structure designed to utilize public/private partnerships to advance advocacy efforts for facilities issues and provide critical information and services to community college districts and their business partners on facility matters. How can the AIACC improve collaboration with the CCFC?

New Technology / Innovation
FUSION is a web-based suite of tools to support the integrated management and reporting on California community college facilities throughout the state. This approach allows for a consistent, standardized approach used by all college districts and for improved efficiency for the districts as well as the California Community College System.

There are also other issues of concern to the profession including updating the California Building Code with amendments and opportunities to coordinate with public utilities to increase incentives for energy efficient design.

 

California Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to New Laws on Redevelopment Agencies

by .
in: AIACC / 0 Comments

The California Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether two laws affecting redevelopment agencies are constitutional. The California Redevelopment Association (CRA) and the League of California Cities (League) asked the Court to directly hear their petition challenging two recently enacted laws that first (ABX1 26), eliminate redevelopment agencies and second (ABX1 27), allow redevelopment agencies to purchase their continued existence.

The Governor proposed the elimination of redevelopment agencies earlier in the year as a way to save $1.7 billion in General Fund money and thus avoiding cuts in that amount to other critical programs.

The AIACC opposed the proposal to eliminate redevelopment agencies because of the role redevelopment agencies play to encourage, and in many cases, allow, development to occur in blighted areas.

The CRA and the League argue that Proposition 22, approved by the voters last November, protects redevelopment agency funds from a state raid, which the elimination represents.

Even with Court agreeing to directly hear the challenge, many redevelopment agencies throughout California are announcing their willingness to purchase their continued existence in the event the challenge fails. Many of those agencies are reporting the money will come from money that otherwise would be used for affordable housing projects.

 

Drylands Design Competition: Rethinking the Future of the American West

by .
in: AIACC / 1 Comment

“Growing population has increased the burden on our water supply. There are more people on earth than ever, and in many places we are using water at unsustainable rates. Cultural shifts contribute to subtle, far-reaching effects on water supplies.” (The Great Aridification; New York Times, July 17, 2011)

Water scarcity is both the history and the future of the American west. Re-thinking water use, particularly in the face of climate change, will be central to the region’s survival. The work exceeds the grasp of a single discipline, and touches all dimensions of the way people live and work. Sustaining the US West in the face of water scarcity and hydrologic variability brought on by climate change will require strategic architectures, infrastructures, and urbanisms that promote adaptation and resilience.

The California Architectural Foundation, in partnership with the Arid Lands Institute at Woodbury University and the AIACC Academy for Emerging Professionals, is seeking solutions to these problems through the 2011-2012 William Turnbull Competition: Drylands Design: An Open Ideas Competition for Retrofitting the American West. Design teams are invited to generate progressive proposals that suggest to policy makers and the public creative alternatives for the American west, ideas that may be replicated throughout the West.

The Challenge: New architectures, infrastructures, and landscapes for retrofitting the American West. Visit drylandscompetition.org for complete brief.

The Site: Anywhere in the US, west of the 100th Meridian.

Who’s Eligible: Open to professionals and students from around the world in architecture, landscape architecture, engineering, urban design, and other disciplines.

Schedule

Competition briefing – via online webinar September 21, 2011
Entries – Due December 15, 2011

Awards: Winners will be awarded research grants and access to a team of policy + technical advisors, to advance their proposals.

Dissemination: Winners will deliver proposals at the International Drylands Design Conference, Los Angeles, March 2012.

Selected entries will be included in a traveling exhibition, opening at the A+D Museum, Los Angeles, March 2012.

For more information and to register click here