Deadline Approaching to Claim Small Business Health Care Tax Credit
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Also In This Update
- Department of Industrial Relations Creates Wage Theft Crime Unit
- More New Bill Introductions
Deadline Approaching to Claim Small Business Health Care Tax Credit
As the March 15 corporate tax filing deadline approaches, the California Chamber of Commerce is reminding small businesses to take advantage of the small business health care tax credit. The tax credit is part of the federal 2010 Affordable Care Act.
California small businesses can review the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidelines to determine eligibility for the tax credit on the new business-oriented website, www.healthlawguideforbusiness.org.
The website offers a “tax credit calculator” that helps employers estimate savings available under the law.
About the Credit
The small business health care tax credit helps small businesses and small tax-exempt organizations afford the cost of covering their employees. According to the IRS, small employers that pay at least half of the premium for employee health insurance coverage may be eligible for the small business health care tax credit. Small tax-exempt organizations also may qualify.
The IRS reports that since April 2010, it has sent millions of postcards to small employers to let them know about the new small business health care tax credit and encourage them to check their eligibility. Even a business that didn’t receive a postcard still may be eligible.
The credit is worth up to 35% of a small business’s premium costs (25% for tax-exempt employers). In 2014, this rate increases to 50% (35% for tax-exempt employers).
Qualifications
To qualify, an employer must have fewer than the equivalent of 25 full-time workers (for example, an employer with fewer than 50 half-time workers may be eligible). A qualifying employer also must pay average annual wages below $50,000.
The credit phases out gradually for firms with average wages between $25,000 and $50,000 and for firms with the equivalent of between 10 and 25 full-time workers.
To determine if they qualify, businesses may use this three-step fact sheet from the IRS. Eligible small employers will use Form 8941 to calculate the credit.
Additional information about eligibility requirements and calculating the credit can be found on the Small Business Health Care Tax Credit for Small Employers page of IRS.gov.
Department of Industrial Relations Creates Wage Theft Crime Unit
The state Labor Commissioner has announced the creation of a Criminal Investigation Unit (CIU) to target employers who perpetrate “wage theft.”
Generally, “wage theft” is a phrase used to refer to infractions of the California Labor Code involving the payment of wages to workers. Wage theft might refer to employers who fail to pay for all hours worked, fail to pay nonexempt employees overtime, fail to pay minimum wage or fail to properly classify workers as employees and report them to the various state and federal agencies.
According to Labor Commissioner Julie Su, the new criminal unit “will be tasked with leveling the playing field for California employers by raising the stakes for those who underpay, underbid and under-report in violation of the law.”
The goal is to protect workers and to allow companies that follow the law to compete. Cases to be handled by the CIU include:
- Workers’ compensation violations;
- Theft of labor (felony or misdemeanor);
- Payment of wages with bounced checks or insufficient funds;
- Kickbacks on public works projects;
- Violations involving minors on the job.
The CIU will conduct investigations, make arrests for Labor Code violations, file criminal charges and serve subpoenas and inspection warrants. The CIU will be made up of sworn peace officers who have completed the police academy and who qualify to carry firearms.
Wage theft prevention certainly appears to be at the forefront of the Labor Commissioner’s agenda. In January, I reported that the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) also launched an interagency Labor Enforcement Task Force (LETF) to “combat the underground economy” by cracking down on businesses that do not follow the state’s labor laws — hiring employees off the books and paying them under the table.
More New Bill Introductions
Picking up from where I left off last week, here are a few more “gems” that were just introduced:
AB 1892 (Halderman R) Construction defects: homeowners.
Summary: This bill would require the Department of Consumer Affairs to post information on its Internet Web site concerning a homeowner’s rights and responsibilities in bringing an action against a builder for construction defects.
AB 1901 (Jones R) Counties: construction projects: design-build.
Summary: Current law, sunsets the ability of counties to utilize design/build for all construction projects over $2.5 million. This bill would make this law permanent and eliminate the $2.5 million floor, meaning that counties could utilize this process for any and all construction projects regardless of cost.
AB 1902 (Jones R) Publication: newspaper of general circulation: Internet Web site.
Summary: Current law requires that various types of notices are provided in a newspaper of general circulation. Current law requires a newspaper of general circulation to meet certain criteria, including, among others, that it be published and have a substantial distribution to paid subscribers in the city, district, or judicial district in which it is seeking adjudication. This bill would provide that a newspaper that is available on an Internet Web site may also qualify as a newspaper of general circulation, provided that newspaper meets certain criteria.
AB 1920 (Berryhill, Bill R) Contractors: compensation. ECA Sponsored Bill
Summary: Would address the current ability of a owner or prime contractor to disgorge all payments made to a contractor because his/her license was suspended during the course of the contract, by stating that if the CSLB re-instates the license retroactively to before the time of the suspension the affected contractor would have the ability to file a civil action to reclaim any and all money that was disgorged.
AB 1960 (Dickinson D) State contracts: reports: lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender businesses.
Summary: Current law governing public contracts requires the Department of Transportation to
establish and administer a computerized databank containing a list of certified minority, women, and
disadvantaged business enterprises. This bill would require the Department of Transportation to include, in that databank, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender businesses.
AB 2021 (Wagner R) Works of improvement: disputed amounts. ECA Sponsored Bill
Summary: The current prompt pay provisions in the law do not define disputed amount. Consequently some owners and some prime contractors will “game” the system by claiming that costs on a job, for example, are disputed which, in-turn, allows them to withhold 150% of the disputed amount. This bill will define disputed amount.
Employer Form For New Employees – NOTICE TO EMPLOYEE – Labor Code Section 2810.5 To Be Revised – Hold Off Using Existing Form
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Back in early January, I reported that, despite our strong urgings to the contrary (as part of a large employer coalition), the governor signed into law AB 469 (Chapter 655, Statutes of 2011) which is known as the Wage Theft Protection Act of 2011. This new law took effect on January 1, 2012 and immediately began to cause major confusion and problems.
Labor Code section 2810.5 was added by the bill which requires that all employers must provide each new hire with a “Notice to Employee” and accompanying FAQs. Below is the form that the Labor Commissioner issued which has caused all of the confusion . As you may recall, I also reported that I was participating in meetings with the Labor Commissioner’s office to try and rectify the problems.
Bob Roginson, who is a partner in the law firm of Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, has given me the heads up that the revised form should be out within the next few weeks and to hold off providing the existing form to new hires until the revised form is in place. The minute I receive the updated form and FAQ, I will send it out to you. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please contact me either by email at: phil@pvgov.com or call me at (916) 784-7055
This form and FAQs will be revised. Do NOT use
|
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEE Labor Code section 2810.5
Effective January 1, 2012, California Labor Code section 2810.5(a) requires that the following information be provided to each employee at the time of hire in the language the employer normally uses to communicate employment-related information. Exceptions to this requirement are indicated on the next page. This notice is available in other languages at www.dir.ca.gov/DLSE.
|
|
EMPLOYEE |
|
Employee Name: Hire Date: |
|
EMPLOYER |
|
Name of Employer: ___________________ (Check all that apply): □ Sole Proprietor □ Corporation □ Limited Liability Company □ General Partnership □ Other type of entity: __ ____________________________________________________ □ Staffing agency (e.g., temp agency or PEO) Other Name Employer is doing business as (if applicable): Physical Address of Main Office: _____________ Employer’s Mailing Address: Employer’s Telephone Number: If the worksite employer uses any other business or entity to hire employees or administer wages or benefits, complete the information above for the worksite employer, complete the information below for the other business, and complete the remaining sections. If there is no other business or co-employer, or if the only other business is a recruiting service or a payroll processing service, skip the rest of this section, and complete the remaining sections. Name of Other Business: This other business is a: □ Professional Employer Organization (PEO) or Employee Leasing Company or a Temporary Services Agency □ Other: Physical Address of Main Office: Mailing Address: Telephone Number:
|
|
WAGE INFORMATION |
|
Rate(s) of Pay: ____ Overtime Rate(s) of Pay: _____________ Rate by (check box): □ Hour □ Shift □ Day □ Week □ Salary □ Piece rate □ Commission □ Other (provide specifics): Employment agreement is (check box): □ Oral □ Written Allowances, if any, claimed as part of minimum wage (including meal or lodging allowances):
Regular Pay Day:
|
|
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION |
|
Insurance Carrier’s Name: Address: Telephone Number:
|
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT |
|
(PRINT NAME of Employer representative) (PRINT NAME of Employee)
(SIGNATURE of Employer representative) (SIGNATURE of Employee)
(Date provided to employee & signed by representative) (Date received by employee & signed by employee)
|
|
Labor Code section 2810.5(b) requires that the employer notify you in writing of any changes to the information set forth in this Notice within seven calendar days after the time of the changes, unless one of the following applies: (a) All changes are reflected on a timely wage statement furnished in accordance with Labor Code section 226; (b) Notice of all changes is provided in another writing required by law within seven days of the changes.
This Notice is NOT required if (a) you are directly employed by the state or any political subdivision thereof, (b) you are an employee who is exempt from the payment of overtime wages by statute or wage order, or (c) you are covered by a collective bargaining agreement that expressly provides for wages, hours of work and working conditions, and provides for premium wage rates for all overtime worked.
The full text of Labor Code section 2810.5 may be found at www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html. Check “Labor Code” and search for “2810.5” in quotes.
The employee’s signature on this notice merely constitutes acknowledgement of receipt. In accordance with an employer’s general recordkeeping requirements under the law, it is the employer’s obligation to ensure that the employment and wage-related information provided on this notice is accurate and complete. Furthermore, the employee’s signature acknowledging receipt of this notice does not constitute a voluntary written agreement as required under the law between the employer and employee in order to credit any meals or lodging against the minimum wage. Any such voluntary written agreement must be evidenced by a separate document.
|
The Universe of New Bills Are In Print
Also In This Update
- Attention Contractors! Portable Equipment – Important Compliance Requirements and Dates to Remember
Well, I can proudly report that I have finished reading all 1,936 new bills that were introduced before last Friday’s deadline. Speaking of last Friday’s deadline, over 700 of these bills were introduced on Friday alone! I’ll tell you, the phrase “blind ambition” certainly takes on a whole new meaning after reading all of them, wow!
So, let’s get to work and report on some of them.
First and foremost are the ones that we are sponsoring this year. Following is a brief summary of each of them:
AB 1671 (Huffman) – In 2008, we sponsored SB 593 (Margett) which was signed into law. This bill mandated zero percent retentions on all Cal Trans’ construction projects. The law currently has a 2014 sunset date; however, because it has worked so well, this measure will extend the sunset date until January 1, 2020.
AB 1920 (Berryhill) – Existing Section 7031 of the Business and Professions Code allows a property owner or prime contractor to bring a civil action to disgorge (require payback) 100 percent of any compensation previously paid to a person who was unlicensed or who is a previously licensed contractor who has allowed his or her license to lapse for a brief period during the performance of a contract. This measure will eliminate the ability of either an owner or contractor from disgorging any compensation from a previously licensed contractor who re-instates his license to good standing with the Contractors’ License Board.
AB 2021 (Wagner) – The existing prompt pay statutes allow an owner to withhold 150% of a disputed amount from a contractor. Unfortunately, the statute does not define “disputed amount” which has resulted in many owners “gaming” the system. This measure will define “disputed amount.”
OK, now here are some other bills that have just been introduced:
AB 1439 (Alejo) - Scaffolding - Existing law places certain requirements on an employer when scaffolding
is used in connection with work upon any building or structure. Existing law prohibits platforms or floors
of the scaffolding from being less than 14 inches in width and requires them to be free from knots or
fractures impairing their strength. Currently, this is a "spot bill," meaning that there will be language
amended into this measure. I will be watching this bill very closely!
AB 1450 (Allen)- Employment: discrimination: status as unemployed.
Would make it unlawful, unless based on a bona fide occupational qualification or any
other provision of law, for an employer to knowingly or intentionally refuse to consider for employment or refuse to offer employment to an individual because of the individual’s status as unemployed, publish an advertisement or announcement for any job that includes provisions pertaining to an individual’s status as unemployed, as specified, or direct or request that an employment agency take an individual’s status as unemployed into account in screening or referring applicants for employment.
AB 1508 (Carter) – Vehicles: inspection of loads.
Would authorize a member of a city police department or a member of a county sheriff’s
office, whose primary responsibility is to conduct theft investigations, to stop any vehicle, and would make those provisions applicable with regard to a vehicle that is transporting metal products or metal alloy products.
AB 1514 (Lowenthal, Bonnie) – Public works: excavations: violations.
Current law generally requires any person planning to conduct an excavation to contact a regional notification center prior to excavation, and, if practical, to delineate the areas to be excavated. Current law authorizes the Attorney General, a district attorney, or the state or a local agency that issued a permit to excavate to bring an action for the enforcement of a civil penalty against an operator or excavator who negligently or knowingly and willfully violates these and related provisions. This bill would also authorize the Public Utilities Commission to bring an action for enforcement pursuant to the provisions described above.
AB 1608 (Wieckowski) – Clean Vehicle Rebate Project.
Would establish the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project to be administered by the California
Center for Sustainable Energy and with funds made available by the state board pursuant to the Air Quality Improvement Program. The bill would require rebates be made available for the purchase of eligible medium- or heavy-duty commercial vehicles from a California manufacturer, as defined, in an amount 40% greater than the rebates made available for the purchase of eligible medium- or heavy duty commercial vehicles not from a California manufacturer.
AB 1703 (Hill ) – Public utilities: reporting: safety issues.
Would require a public utility to file a completed report with the Public Utilities Commission
within 30 days as to any final judgment, arbitration award, compromise, or settlement in excess of $50,000 in any civil action brought by an employee, former employee, contractor, or subcontractor of the utility against the utility regarding safety issues that could jeopardize the lives or health of Californians. The bill would authorize the commission to limit this reporting requirement to those particular types of claims that the commission determines are likely to involve claims or allegations that could jeopardize the lives or health of Californians. The bill would require the commission to develop and adopt the report form to be used by a public utility to comply with this reporting requirement. The bill would require specified civil penalties to be imposed for a violation of these requirements.
AB 2218 (Williams ) Consumer safety: table saws.
Current state regulations require certain types of table saws to be guarded by a hood and
to contain various safety features to prevent injury. This bill would prohibit a seller, on or after January 1, 2015, from selling a new table saw in this state unless that table saw is equipped with active injury mitigation technology. “Active injury mitigation technology” means technology to detect contact with, or dangerous proximity between, a hand or finger and the teeth of the blade above the table top of a table saw, and to prevent the blade from cutting the hand or finger deeper than one-eighth of an inch when the hand or finger approaches any portion of the blade above the table top at a speed of one foot per second from any direction and along any path. Notwithstanding the prior sentence, active injury mitigation technology may be temporarily deactivated by a person so that a saw can cut material which would otherwise be detected as a person.
The bill would make a seller who violates these provisions subject to a civil fine not exceeding $5,000 per sale. The bill would authorize the Attorney General to maintain an action against any seller who violates these provisions.
Attention Contractors! Portable Equipment – Important Compliance Requirements and Dates to Remember
Contractors and portable equipment and engine owners should be aware of several key dates and requirements for the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Portable Engine Air Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) and Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP). A brief summary that outlines various reporting deadlines and other important information about the portable engine ATCM and PERP was prepared by a member of the Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition (CIAQC).
If you own portable engines or equipment, take a moment to review the summary and make sure you are familiar with the steps necessary to comply with the portable engine ATCM and PERP.
February 2012
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD’S (CARB)
PORTABLE ENGINE AIR TOXICS CONTROL MEASURE (PORTABLE ATCM)
FIRST FLEET AVERAGE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT
Portable Engine ATCM
In 2011 the Portable Engine ATCM required that an initial Status Report be submitted to California Air Resources Board (CARB) which included an inventory of all portable engines rated at greater than or equal to 50 horsepower (hp) that are either registered in the Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) or permitted with a local air district. Please be aware that the first weighted particulate matter (PM) emissions fleet average compliance date is January 1, 2013. Below is a table with the January 1, 2013 weighted PM emissions fleet standards.
|
Fleet Standard |
Engines < 175 hp |
Engines 175 to 750 hp |
Engines > 750 hp |
|
01/01/2013 |
0.3 |
0.15 |
0.25 |
If a fleet is currently not meeting these standards, then in 2012 it needs to implement PM Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (VDECS) and/or engine replacements.
Engines which are not subject to the Portable Engine ATCM requirements (for example, auxiliary crane engines, auxiliary sweeper engines for sweepers that are privately owned, and permanently affixed engines mounted on marine vessels) should not be included in the PM fleet average calculation. If you have questions regarding which engines to include, please contact us and we’ll help you figure it out (contact information is below).
The Portable Engine ATCM also requires that a Statement of Compliance be submitted to CARB by March 1, 2013 indicating that the PM emission fleet standards have been achieved.
Also, please keep in mind if you intend to install a VDECS on an engine, an application to modify the PERP registration will be required to add the information on the VDECS to the engine’s description. This may also be required if the engine has a permit through the local air district.
In addition to the Portable Engine ATCM, there are a couple of other issues related to Portable Engines and PERP-registered equipment that you should keep in mind. These are described below.
PERP Annual Report
Annual reports for equipment units registered in PERP are due March 1, 2012. This report is comprised of a summary of the equipment unit’s operation during calendar year 2011. The specific requirements for the annual reports are listed in the operating conditions of your registration(s). If you have any questions about submitting your annual reports or lack the time to compile the reports yourself please contact us for assistance (contact information is below). Annual reports are no longer required for registered engines.
Engine Emission Standard Change and PERP
On January 1, 2012 engine manufacturers were required to begin producing engines in the 75 to 174 horsepower range category that are certified to the Interim Tier 4 emissions standard. The Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) will continue to accept applications for Tier 3 engines in this horsepower category until June 30, 2012, six months beyond the start of the Interim Tier 4 emission standard. On July 1, 2012 all applications for initial registration in PERP for engine rated 50 horsepower or greater must be certified to at least the Interim Tier 4 emission standard.
If you own a Tier 3 engine which qualifies for PERP registration and do not yet have one, or you just do not know if your engine qualifies, please contact us and we will figure it out and help you get a registration (contact information is below).
Associates Environmental is ready to assist you with the Portable ATCM fleet average and reporting requirements and the PERP annual reporting requirements. We can also answer any questions you have relating to engines eligible for PERP registration and can help you deal with the Off-Road Diesel Regulation(don’t forget that large fleets are required to submit a Responsible Official Affirmation of Reporting by March 1, 2012), On-Road Truck & Bus Regulation, LSI Regulation and Periodic Smoke Inspection Program.
If we can help you navigate through any of the CARB regulations or answer any questions you might have, please call us at (714) 916-4953 or send us an e-mail.
Mike Buckantz
Associate
mbuck@associatesenvironmental.com
Final Federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination ACT (GINA) Recordkeeping Rule Issued
ALSO IN THIS UPDATE
- Workers’ Comp Bill Is AB 1794
The California Chamber reported this morning that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued its final recordkeeping rule for the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). This rule will take effect on April 3, 2012.
The new recordkeeping rule (first proposed last June) requires employers to take the following steps:
- Any personnel or employment record made or kept by an employer must be preserved by the employer for a period of one year from the date of the making of the record or the personnel action involved, whichever occurs later. In the case of involuntary termination of an employee, the personnel records of the individual terminated shall be kept for a period of one year from the date of termination.
- Where a charge of discrimination has been filed, or an action brought by the EEOC or the U.S. Attorney General, against an employer under GINA, the employer must preserve all personnel records relevant to the charge or action until final disposition of the charge or the action.
The same exact requirements already exist under Title VII and the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). The final regulations “do not require employers to create any records and do not impose any reporting requirements, but merely require employers to maintain the records that they do create.”
GINA prohibits employers from discriminating against employees or applicants because of genetic information. California law also prohibits discrimination on the basis of an employee’s genetic information or genetic characteristics.
CalChamber to Offer Webinar
To help employers keep current on compliance requirements and determine which records must be kept confidential the California Chamber of Commerce will be offering a recordkeeping webinar on Thursday, March 15, 10 a.m.-11:30 a.m.
Recordkeeping 101 Webinar will cover:
- I-9 documentation and retention;
- W-4s and DE4s;
- Confidentiality of records; and
- Record retention requirements.
CalChamber Presenters
Susan Kemp, CalChamber senior employment law counsel, has written and edited several CalChamber publications on topics such as employee handbooks, sexual harassment investigations, family and medical leave, and exempt/non-exempt employees. She is the manager of the CalChamber’s Helpline and a frequent speaker on a variety of employment-related topics.
Erika Frank, vice president, legal affairs, and general counsel for the CalChamber, was named vice president of legal affairs in 2009. She joined the CalChamber in April 2004 as a policy advocate and began serving as general counsel shortly thereafter, leveraging her 10 years of combined legal, governmental and legislative experience. As CalChamber’s subject matter expert on California and federal employment law, she oversees and contributes to CalChamber’s labor law and human resources compliance publications; co-produces and presents webinars and seminars; and heads the Labor Law Helpline.
Registration
For more information or to register, call (800) 331-8877 or go directly to the link for the Recordkeeping 101 Webinar
Workers’ Comp Bill Is AB 1794
In my update of last Friday, February 24th, I discussed a new workers’ compensation bill that would require all employers to report new hires to their carriers within 15 days. I unfortunately gave you the wrong bill number. It’s actually AB 1794 (Williams), NOT AB 1754 as reported! Sorry about that! After reading hundreds of bills, I guess “these old eyes” are starting to play tricks on me!
Should A Contractor Be Required To Report New Hires To Their Comp Carrier Within 15 Days?
Today, at 5:00 PM, is the deadline for new bill introductions. As I mentioned last week, the volume of new bill introductions has been growing daily as the deadline draws nearer. Indeed, just yesterday’s introductions reached into the hundreds and today’s load will far exceed that! Stay tuned as I keep you posted on the ones that affect your business.
Speaking of which, there are two new bills of particular interest that I want to discuss today:
AB 1754 (Williams) – As you know, battling the underground economy within the construction industry is a never ending battle. Part of the underground economy also includes contractors who partially play by the rules, but use the system to their own advantage. For example, several years ago we worked with the roofing industry to achieve the passage of a bill that requires all roofing contractors to maintain a workers’ compensation policy. The logic was that a roofer cannot do roofing work by himself and thus should be required to maintain a workers’ compensation policy.
The problem now is that many roofers are obtaining a minimum workers’ compensation policy which costs $650 a year which does not reflect the fact that most have numerous employees! Besides this loophole, the discussion has now broadened to focus on all licensed contractors with employees and the fact that many are using the same loophole to underreport their employees to their workers’ compensation carriers at the expense of their competitors who are playing by the rules.
AB 1754 was introduced this week by the Laborers’ Union to require all licensed contractors to report new hires within 15 days of their hiring to their workers’ compensation carrier and would provide that the licensee or qualifier would be charged with a misdemeanor for not reporting within this time frame if caught through an audit or other means.
I have been asked to come on as a co-sponsor of this bill. When originally asked the other day, my first response was that we absolutely have to go after the bad guys, but I also want to make sure that legitimate contractors are not the ones who end up getting “nailed” due to technicalities in this law. So, my question to you is, is this bill reasonable? Is 15 days an adequate timeframe? Will this help or hurt legitimate contractors?
Let me know your thoughts, please! Neither I nor the Laborers want to “nail” good contractors. So, if you have suggestions on how to make this bill even better, or if it’s a bad idea, let me know why it should be dropped. Only with your input can I help steer this well-intentioned bill in the proper direction (which will be in the dumpster if I receive good arguments as to why this is a bad idea). Email your thoughts to: phil@pvgov.com
Mandatory Pensions For the Private Sector?
Another bill introduced yesterday was SB 1234 (De León), which deals with mandatory pensions for private-sector employees.
As reported in the Sacramento Bee this morning: One day after Republicans sided with Gov. Jerry Brown on public pension reform, Democrats on Thursday said they want millions of Californians to have guaranteed retirement benefits.
Senate Bill 1234, written by Sen. Kevin De León, D-Los Angeles, would require businesses with five or more employees to enroll them in a new “Personal Pension” defined benefit program or to offer an alternative employer-sponsored plan.
The new system’s investments would be professionally managed by CalPERS or another contracted organization. Employees would contribute about 3 percent of their wages through a payroll deduction, although they could opt out of the plan. Employers could make voluntary contributions into the fund.
The fund would assume much lower investment returns than the 7.75 percent that the California Public Employees’ Retirement System says its investments will generate, de León said.
Unlike public pension funds that can pass on their investment shortfalls to taxpayers, private underwriters would assume any losses by the private sector fund.
“It’s a supplement to Social Security. It’s not a panacea,” De León said during a Thursday morning press event with Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and other Democratic and labor leaders.
The UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education figures about 62 percent of working Californians – more than 7 million people – have no retirement savings through their employer. If all of them put 3 percent of their wages into a retirement fund, the pot of money would grow to $6.6 billion in the first year, say university researchers.
The measure still has several details to work out, but assuming that money is deposited before being taxed, the state would lose some revenue but regain it later when the funds are withdrawn and spent in retirement.
A few years ago De León introduced similar savings jump-start legislation that would have put private sector workers into 401(k)-type savings plans instead of the fixed payments guaranteed in his new bill. Both sides of the aisle rejected it, he said.
De León rolled out his revised plan one day after Republicans co-opted Brown’s 12-point pension reform plan and offered it up, word-for-word as their own legislation.
Steinberg rejected suggestions that Democrats are pushing de León’s bill to fend off pressure to enact substantial public pension changes.
“Absolutely not. We’re not running away from it,” Steinberg said, calling de León’s bill the private sector “bookend” to public pension reform measures he expects lawmakers will send to Brown before the current session ends.
So, what do you think? Send me your feedback to: phil@pvgov.com
Payment/Performance Bonds For P3′s?
With one week to go until the deadline for new bill introductions (which is Friday, February 24th), I expect the volume to increase significantly over the next few days. Indeed, if history is my guide, I expect the number of new bills to reach somewhere between 2,700-3,000! Stay tuned as we learn what new laws will be proposed to save ourselves from each other!
One potential bill that has been sent to me (seeking our support), but that has not been officially introduced yet, deals with Public- Private Partnerships. In growing numbers, public agencies are turning to Public – Private Partnership construction projects (PPP’s, or P3’s) to obtain needed public construction for such projects as roads and schools. In one typical P3, the public entity leases public land to a private developer who finances and constructs a facility serving a public need. The developer then leases back the completed project to the public entity for rent, which pays for the cost of construction and profit for the developer.
These projects can make public construction possible, especially in times of bare public coffers, however, they carry risks that need to be fixed legislatively. First, unlike traditional public projects, these projects have unspecified protections for the public entities to ensure that the project will be completed if the developer backs out or fails to pay. Second, unlike traditional public projects, these projects have no protections to ensure contractors will be paid for their work.
The proposed remedy is to require Payment and Performance Bonds on such projects. As the sponsors state:
“These projects are not covered by either the federal Miller Act, state/local “little Miller” Acts or even state lien laws This means that, since no public money goes into these projects, P3’s are not required to obtain Payment and Performance Bonds from the developers. The provisions authorizing P3’s by local public entities are found at California Government Code sections 5956-5956.10.
These sections vaguely require “(2) Security for the construction of the facility to ensure its completion, and contractual provisions that are necessary to protect the revenue streams of the project.” To provide clarity needed to protect the public, such security should be specified to be performance bonds for the anticipated cost of the construction. Further, these sections provide no protections to guaranty that the persons performing the construction are paid for their work. Typical payment bonds would provide the needed protections.
Absent performance bonds, if the private developer fails or otherwise refuses to pay to complete construction, the P3 must itself fund any shortfall in needed construction funds.
Absent payment bonds, if the private developer runs out of money or goes out of business and fails to pay contractors for their work, the contractors have no remedy. In P3’s, payments come from the private developer, which is often a company from a foreign country. When the developer goes out of business there is no one to pay contractors, subcontractors and suppliers. The land is owned by the public and thus cannot have a lien placed on it, and there is no public fund that could be attached with a stop payment notice.
So too, the general contractor may be paid and then go out of business. Again, this leaves the subcontractors without payment. California needs to require that private developers in P3’s post performance bonds to ensure that construction projects are completed. California further needs to require that BOTH the private developer and the general contractor provide payment bonds to ensure that California’s contractors are paid for their work on P3’s.
Public Agencies should actually support this concept, keeping the public’s interest and money in mind! They don’t want to have half-finished projects on their land, and they don’t want to have to pay for projects that they have no budget to complete.
##############################################################################
So, should we come on as a co-sponsor on this measure? I certainly think this bill is good public policy, both for the public agencies and for all contractors. Expect our association’s name and logo to be listed shortly. As usual, I will keep you posted on this measure as it winds its way through the legislative process. So too, I will be reporting on all of those other soon to be introduced measures that are “trying to save mankind!” Stay tuned!
Obama Releases Proposed Budget
President Obama released his Proposed Fiscal 2013 Budget earlier this week it includes:
- $1.175B for the Clean Water SRF, down from the FY12 appropriated level of
- $1.468B, and $850M for the Safe Drinking Water SRF, down from the FY12 appropriated level of $919.36M.
The Clean Water Construction Coalition, of which ECA is a member, will work with the Senate, as we did the last two years, to increase the SRF Funding to at least the Fiscal 2012 levels.
Stay tuned!
New Commercial Recycling Regs Take Effect July 1st
Also In This Update
- New Health Care Reform Website for Employers
- Drones For All
New Commercial Recycling Regs Effective July 1st
Starting July 1, businesses and public entities that generate four cubic yards or more of waste per week and multifamily units of five or more will be required to recycle.
The requirement was contained in legislation signed into law last year, AB 341 (Chesbro; D-North Coast). The purpose of this new law, as stated by the California Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by diverting commercial solid waste to recycling efforts and expand opportunities for additional recycling services and recycling manufacturing facilities in California.
CalRecycle has provided the following information about the law and offers resources to help businesses meet the recycling requirements.
Who Must Comply
- Businesses and public entities that generate four or more cubic yards of solid waste per week.
- Multifamily residential dwellings that have five or more units.
How to Comply
Businesses can take one or any combination of the following in order to reuse, recycle, compost or otherwise divert solid waste from disposal:
- Self-haul.
- Subscribe to a hauler(s).
- Arrange for pick-up of recyclables.
- Subscribe to a recycling service that may include mixed waste processing that yields diversion results comparable to source separation.
CalRecycle advises businesses to contact their local recycling coordinator to find out how to recycle in their community and if there are any specific requirements in their community (see the contacts link below).
Communities may have mandatory commercial recycling ordinances with different thresholds or more specific business recycling requirements than the state law. The local recycling coordinator also may have related business opportunities and/or resources to share.
Recycling Benefits
Recycling benefits identified by CalRecycle include:
- Opportunities for businesses or multifamily complexes to save money.
- Creating jobs in California by providing materials for recycling manufacturing facilities.
- Reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
- Keeping valuable materials out of landfills.
- Creating a healthy environment for the community and future generations by recovering natural resources.
Recycling Resources
- CalRecycle Staff and Local Jurisdiction Contacts: www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/reports/contacts.aspx. Look up CalRecycle staff and local jurisdiction staff by city/county.
- Mandatory Commercial Recycling Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs): www.calrecycle.ca.gov/climate/recycling/faq.htm. A comprehensive list of mandatory commercial recycling questions and answers developed in response to stakeholder inquiries.
- Institute for Local Government Commercial Recycling Resource Center: www.ca-ilg.org/commercialrecycling. The institute offers a webinar series and flyer templates.
- Webinar Series: www.ca-ilg.org/CommercialRecyclingWebinar. Webinar topics: adopting a commercial recycling ordinance; creating effective commercial recycling education and outreach activities; creating enforcement and compliance elements for commercial recycling; addressing recycling programs at apartment complexes; and understanding mandatory commercial recycling regulations—education, outreach and monitoring requirements.
- Template Flyers (for business and multifamily outreach and education): www.ca-ilg.org/CommercialRecyclingFlyer. Downloadable mandatory commercial recycling flyer and cover letter templates with modification instructions.
New Health Care Reform Website for Employers
A group of California business organizations launched a new website to help California businesses understand their obligations under the dense and complex Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Health Law Guide for Business (which can be found at http://www.healthlawguideforbusiness.org/) is designed to provide accurate and easy to understand information on federal health care reform. The website’s motto is “2,409 pages. One simple web site.”
The website “accommodates the 21st Century demands of running a business,” said Emily Lam, senior director of health care and federal issues for the Silicon Valley leadership Group. “With little time for employers to sift through the law’s content to locate what’s most significant, the site offers a user-friendly format that highlights key areas of the law that are important for businesses … .”
For instance, the new website offers a “tax credit calculator” that helps employers estimate tax savings available under the federal law. One survey conducted by Pacific Community Ventures showed that when small businesses are aware of benefits, such as tax credits, 43 percent of them are more likely to offer health insurance.
The website will also provide significant and up-to-date information on the process for implementing the federal law in California.
Principal of David S. White & Associates, a real estate and general business law firm, West Los Angeles
Thursday, February 9th, 2012
We have seen what drones have been able to accomplish in both of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in other locales in the Middle East and South Asia. How about drones right here in the good ol’ US of A?!? They’re coming, folks . . . . just wait a couple of years.
Talk about a subject that has something in it for everybody.
The recently passed FAA Reauthorization Act, awaiting Pres. Obama’s expected ‘John Hancock’ on the bottom line, includes something unexpected. By me, anyway. The Federal Aviation Administration is tasked with developing regulations for the testing and licensing of commercial drone aircraft by 2015 – September, I believe.
This one set the Online Media tongues a’wagging earlier this week. Civil libertarians are digging in about law enforcement using drones, while many in the commercial sector are salivating over all the possible uses for drones.
I heard an NPR radio piece about it on a long drive the other day, where a couple is out hiking, admiring a beautiful Spring day in Future USA, when they come upon a Hummingbird. Not just any Hummingbird, mind you. A drone Hummingbird, doing a wee bit of surveillance, indistinguishably humming along out there among Mother Nature’s finest creations.
Everybody will find something in commercial drones. Imagine, surveyors and real estate brokers can get aerial views like having a trained, camera-carrying falcon at your disposal. With good quality video cameras now crammed into everything from iPhones to any half-decent digital camera – they’re that tiny now – the technology is completely achievable right now, as you read this.
But, the FAA has a job on their hands to figure out where to fit commercial drones in the already incredibly crowded, Friendly Skies over America. As I mentioned in a previous article here, the FAA slices and dices the sky above us into thousand foot traffic lanes, alternately going in two directions and air traffic controllers monitor thousands of flights daily, which, by some miracle and a heap of stressful, hard work, don’t smack into each other too often. As the old Byrds song goes, “Eight Miles High” is about the top level – that’s 40,000 feet, roughly – room for an incredible amount of flying metal tubes with wings, people inside, and more cargo than you can imagine. And now, drones too.
Commercial shippers should be eager to dispense with the human costs of piloting flights if they can get your FedEx or UPS package there on time, without paying salaries, benefits, retirement and pensions, and without all that hassle of scheduling humans. Drones, after all, are just flying computers, and, as such, they don’t need to limit flying hours, don’t get tired, and never have alcohol on their breath after a wild partying weekend.
Of course, law enforcement already has their birds in the sky – those choppers which circle endlessly over troubled areas, with those annoying spotlights casting about, waking you up late at night, often signaling somebody on the run from the law, leaping backyard fences. Some neighborhoods, like Echo Park, where one of my offspring dwells, already have it as almost a nightly feature, like the streetlamps going on at sunset. But, law enforcement is as strapped as everybody else these days, and they too can save on the human costs of piloting, substituting drones as their eye in the sky.
How about weather helicopters – the flying weatherman, or woman, can sit and sip coffee, warm and dry in the studio, and let the drone go out when it’s not a fit night, or day, for man or beast. Perhaps, fire fighting drones, carrying flame retardents and water, flying even at night, with no human pilots to endanger?
Scientists could mount whole fleets of drones to study this or that phenomenon easily, and to search for archaeological treasures with all kinds of drones loaded with the spectrum of sensing, mapping, and monitoring devices. Oil, gas and water exploration too! Census takers too.
Sure, they’ll cost a fortune at first – like my $1000 CD Player, when they first came out in the early 80’s, the price of being an early adoter – today, you can pick one up at Costco, Best Buy and a zillion more places for, perhaps, a double sawbuck, or less. Drone prices will come way down, and perhaps we can even engineer personal drones, for joy-riding the skies over the Santa Monica Mountains, with the Ravens and Seagulls. Maybe Jetsons’-style drone flying commuter cars, to relieve road traffic congestion, with computer collision-avoidance systems too?
Military folks already have drones in all sizes and in the shapes of all the beasts existing in today’s zoological kingdom. Was that a cow you just passed on your way to Mammoth? Or, was it a walking drone cow, counting cars, with special monitors to sense where you came from, where you are going, and sporting complete connectivity with traffic flow, so that your way there is smoothed without you even suspecting it, and terrorists traveling the same route can be neutralized with the touch of a button.
The possibilities are endless. It’s coming for Fall 2015. Drones for all!
Employers Must Post Job-Related Injuries Summary by February 1st, 2012
A BIG reminder to you!! Employers must post a summary of job-related injuries and illnesses from 2011 at their place of business by February 1.
The California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) requires the Cal/OSHA Log 300 summary (Form 300A) to be displayed from February 1 to April 30 for employee review.
A free Log 300 wizard is available at the CalChamber Store at (www.calchamberstore.com/log300wizard) to help a business determine whether it is subject to recordkeeping requirements.
Companies that had 10 or fewer employees at all times during the last calendar year do not need to keep Cal/OSHA injury and illness records. Employers with 11 or more employees, except those covered in the California low-hazard establishments in the retail, service, finance and real estate sectors, must display the totals from the Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses (Cal/OSHA Form 300A) wherever employee notices are usually posted. If there is more than one business establishment, a separate summary must be posted in each physical location that is expected to be in operation for one year or longer.
Form 300: Not Posted
The Form 300 is used to record, or log, all injuries and illnesses, except those that have been determined to be first aid only. Typically, the Form 300 is not posted because there may be employee privacy issues involved.
Employers are not to include the employee’s name for specific injuries or illnesses such as needle sticks, HIV infection, hepatitis, sexual assault and others. In addition, an employee suffering from an injury or illness not listed as a privacy issue may request that his/her name not be entered on the log.
Post Form 300A
Another form, the 300A, must be completed and posted beginning February 1. This form contains a summary of the total number of job-related injuries and illnesses that occurred during the previous year. Employers are required to post only the summary (Form 300A)—not the Form 300 (Log)—from February 1 to April 30.
The summary must list the total number of job-related injuries and illnesses that occurred in the previous year and were logged on the Form 300 (Log). Employment information about the annual average number of employees and total hours worked during the calendar year also is required to assist in calculating incidence rates. Companies with no recordable injuries or illnesses in the previous year must post the summary with zeros on the “total” line. A company executive must certify all establishment summaries.
The form is to be displayed in a common area where notices to employees usually are posted. Employers must make a copy of the summary available to employees who move from worksite to worksite, such as construction workers, and employees who do not report to any fixed establishment on a regular basis.
Temporary Workplaces
For establishments in existence for less than one year, one OSHA log/summary may incorporate all recordable injuries and illnesses that may occur at any and all of the “temporary” establishments. That log/summary for the “temporary” establishments may be included with the central location’s Log 300 and summary.
If a company has developed or has available a system to receive all the required accident/illness information to develop and update a site-specific log, a centralized record keeping system can be maintained. The company must have the ability to return the specific information to the affected location within seven days, however.
More Information/Forms
A free wizard to help determine whether a business is subject to Form 300 filing and posting requirements is available at www.calchamberstore.com/log300wizard.
For more information on Form 300 filing and posting requirements, or copies of the OSHA Forms 300, 300A and 301, visit hrcalifornia.com.
Follow Up On Excavation Legislation of Last Week
In last week’s update, I included copies of two new bills that have been introduced which should be of interest to most contractors. One in particular, AB 1514 (Bonnie Lowenthal), is a bill pertaining to excavation that would expand the entities that can bring an action of enforcement against a violator of the existing Government Code Section 4216 et seq, to also include the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). I want to stress, while expanding the law to include the PUC is certainly something that would only serve to ‘pile on,’ the remainder of the language within the legislation cites existing law. To refresh your memory, current Government Code Section 4216.2 states,
4216.2. (a) (1) Except in an emergency, any person planning to conductany excavation shall contact the appropriate regional notification center, at least two working days, but not more than 14calendar days, prior to commencing that excavation, if the excavation will be conducted in an area that is known, or reasonably should be known, to contain subsurface installations other than the underground facilities owned or operated by the excavator and, if practical, the
excavator shall delineate with white paint or other suitable markings the area to be excavated.
(2) When the excavation is proposed within 10 feet of a high priority subsurface installation, the operator of the high priority subsurface installation shall notify the excavator of the existence
of the high priority subsurface installation prior to the legal excavation start date and time, as such date and time are authorized pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 4216.2. The excavator and operator or its representative shall conduct an onsite meeting at a mutually-agreed-on time to determine actions or activities required to verify the location of the high priority subsurface installations prior to start time.
(b) Except in an emergency, every excavator covered by Section 4216.8 planning to conduct an excavation on private property may contact the appropriate regional notification center if the private property is known, or reasonably should be known, to contain a subsurface installation other than the underground facility owned or operated by the excavator and, if practical, the excavator shall delineate with white paint or other suitable markings the area to be excavated.
So how is excavation defined in the law?
(b) “Excavation” means any operation in which earth, rock, or other material in the ground is moved, removed, or otherwise displaced by means of tools, equipment, or explosives in any of the following ways: grading, trenching, digging, ditching, drilling, augering, tunneling, scraping, cable or pipe plowing and driving, or any other way.
Under current law, Government Code Section 4216 authorizes the Attorney General, a district attorney, or the state or a local agency that issued a permit to excavate to bring an action for the enforcement of a civil penalty against an operator (utility) or excavator who negligently or knowingly and willfully violates these and related provisions. Current law (Government Code 4216.6 prescribes the fines as:
(a) (1) Any operator or excavator who negligently violates this article is subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000).
(2) Any operator or excavator who knowingly and willfully violates any of the provisions of this article is subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed fifty thousand dollars ($50,000).
Oh, and besides these aforementioned penalties, a violator can also be cited by the Contractors’ State License Board for a violation of Government Code 4216 as well!
One other thing you should know is the definition of excavator according to the law:
4216 (c) Except as provided in Section 4216.8, “excavator” means any person, firm, contractor or subcontractor, owner, operator, utility, association, corporation, partnership, business trust, public agency, or other entity that, with their, or his or her, own employees or equipment performs any excavation.
Here Come the Feds
Expect to see a lot more legislative activity in this area of the law in the years ahead. Certainly, last year’s San Bruno disaster has played a role in this increased activity, even though the cause of the explosion had nothing to do with excavation! Even more importantly is the fact that the Federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) published in the Congressional Record back in October, 2009 comments about perceived problems around the country with states not enforcing better excavation enforcement standards which, in-turn, has resulted in damage to utility lines (and to other providers’ facilities) as well as injuries or death in some instances. PHMSA believes that much of these problems could be resolved if all excavators (which includes contractors and utilities) notified the Regional Notification Centers (One Call Centers) to have locations properly marked prior to excavating.
To this end, PHMSA is seeking to encourage states to strengthen their excavation damage prevention laws and to adequately enforce their respective laws. Toward this goal and in response to language included in the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety (PIPES) Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-468), PHMSA intends to issue criteria and procedures, through a rulemaking proceeding, for determining whether states are adequately enforcing their damage prevention laws, and for conducting federal enforcements if necessary.
Finally, in response to the introduction of AB 1514 and the anticipation of possible federal action, I hosted a meeting at the Capitol last Thursday with all of the utilities, contractor associations, legislative staff members and other interested stakeholders (about 37 in all) to sit down and discuss this issue in its entirety. I also invited Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal’s staff to come and give a presentation to the group about her bill.
After it was all said and done, the group decided to leave ‘well enough alone’ and wait for the feds to propose something instead of moving forward with legislation this session. It was felt that anticipating what the feds might expect in state legislation would be premature at best. Oh, and almost everyone in the meeting “hated” the idea of the PUC becoming involved. Stay tuned!
Hopeful Solution To New Hire Law Forthcoming
Also In This Update
- New Bill Start to Trickle In
Update On New Hire Law Problem
In last week’s update, I wrote about the new hire law (which took effect on January 1st) and the problems it is causing employers. I just received confirmation of a conference call next Thursday morning between the Labor Commissioner’s office, myself, and all of my colleagues (including Bob Roginson) who have been working to resolve the problems. Keep your fingers crossed that next week’s call will find the solutions. As always, you’ll be the first to know and have the latest information at your finger tips. Stay tuned!
New Bills Begin To Trickle In
The commencement of the second year of the two-year session means that new bills are being introduced daily. Following are a couple that should get your attention! Remember, the introduction of a new bill only notes the ‘start of the fun!’ While the first one, AB 1514 is intended to ‘go after’ excavators that don’t call before excavating, the second one, AB 1508 is trying to go after metal thefts. Unfortunately, while well-intentioned, this could become a royal pain, too! Your thoughts and suggestions would be appreciated.
AB 1514, as introduced, Bonnie Lowenthal. Public works:
excavations: violations.
Summary Digest
Existing law generally requires any person planning to conduct an
excavation to contact a regional notification center prior to
excavation, and, if practical, to delineate the areas to be
excavated. Existing law authorizes the Attorney General, a district
attorney, or the state or a local agency that issued a permit to
excavate to bring an action for the enforcement of a civil penalty
against an operator or excavator who negligently or knowingly and
willfully violates these and related provisions.
This bill would also authorize the Public Utilities Commission to
bring an action for enforcement pursuant to the provisions described
above.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 4216.6 of the Government Code is amended to read:
4216.6.
(a) (1) Any operator or excavator who negligently violates this article is subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000).
(2) Any operator or excavator who knowingly and willfully violates any of the provisions of this article is subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed fifty thousand dollars ($50,000).
(3) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this article, this section is not intended to affect any civil remedies otherwise provided by law for personal injury or for property damage, including any damage to subsurface installations, nor is this section intended to create any new civil remedies for those injuries or that damage.
(4) This article shall not be construed to limit any other provision of law granting governmental immunity to state or local agencies or to impose any liability or duty of care not otherwise imposed by law upon any state or local agency.
(b) An action may be brought by the Attorney General, the district attorney, the Public Utilities Commission, or the local or state agency which issued the permit to excavate, for the enforcement of the civil penalty pursuant to this section. If penalties are collected as a result of a civil suit brought by a state or local agency for collection of those civil penalties, the penalties imposed shall be paid to the general fund of the agency. If more than one agency is involved in enforcement, the penalties imposed shall be apportioned among them by the court in a manner that will fairly offset the relative costs incurred by the state or local agencies, or both, in collecting these fees.
AB 1508, as introduced, Carter. Vehicles: inspection of loads.
Summary Digest
(1) Existing law authorizes the Department of the California
Highway Patrol to stop a vehicle transporting timber products,
livestock, poultry, farm produce, crude oil, petroleum products, or
inedible kitchen grease and inspect certain documents to determine
whether the driver is in legal possession of the load, and, upon
reasonable belief that the driver of the vehicle is not in legal
possession, to take custody of the vehicle and load, as prescribed,
and imposes duties on the sheriff with respect to the care and
safekeeping of those products.
This bill would additionally authorize a member of a city police
department or a member of a county sheriff’s office, whose primary
responsibility is to conduct theft investigations, to stop any
vehicle, and would make those provisions applicable with regard to a
vehicle that is transporting metal products or metal alloy products.
By imposing additional duties on a sheriff regarding the care and
safekeeping of metal products and metal alloy products, this bill
would impose a state-mandated local program.
The bill additionally would authorize a member of a city police
department and a member of the county sheriff’s office, whose primary
responsibility is to conduct theft investigations, to stop and
inspect vehicles transporting any of those loads.
(2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates
determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these
statutory provisions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 2810 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
2810.
(a) A member of the Department of the California Highway Patrol, a member of a city police department whose primary responsibility is to conduct theft investigations, or a member of a county sheriff’s office whose primary responsibility is to conduct theft investigations may stop any vehicle transporting any timber products, livestock, poultry, farm produce, crude oil, petroleum products, metal products, metal alloy products, or inedible kitchen grease, and inspect the bills of lading, shipping or delivery papers, or other evidence to determine whether the driver is in legal possession of the load, and, upon reasonable belief that the driver of the vehicle is not in legal possession, shall take custody of the vehicle and load and turn them over to the custody of the sheriff of the county in which the timber products, livestock, poultry, farm produce, crude oil, petroleum products, metal products, metal alloy products, or inedible kitchen grease, or any part thereof of those loads, is apprehended.
(b) The sheriff shall receive and provide for the care and safekeeping of the apprehended timber products, livestock, poultry, farm produce, crude oil, petroleum products, metal products, metal alloy products, or inedible kitchen grease, or any part thereof of those loads, and immediately, in cooperation with the department, proceed with an investigation and its legal disposition.
(c) Any expense incurred by the sheriff in the performance of his or her duties under this section shall be a legal charge against the county.
SEC. 2.
If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.