BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 391
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 14, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
Roger Hern�ndez, Chair
SB 391 (DeSaulnier) - As Amended: August 8, 2013
SENATE VOTE : 27-12
SUBJECT : California Homes and Jobs Act of 2013.
SUMMARY : Enacts the California Homes and Jobs Act of 2013
(Act). Specifically, this bill :
1)Imposes a fee, beginning January 1, 2014, of $75 on the
recording of each real estate instrument, paper, or notice, as
specified.
2)Provides that the fee requirement shall not be imposed on
documents recorded in connection with a transfer subject to a
documentary transfer tax.
3)Directs moneys raised from the aforementioned fee to the
California Homes and Jobs Trust Fund (Trust Fund).
4)Provides that, upon appropriation by the Legislature, moneys
in the Trust Fund may be expended for the following purposes:
a) Supporting the development, acquisition, rehabilitation,
and preservation of housing affordable to low- and
moderate-income households, including, but not limited to,
transitional and permanent rental housing, including
necessary service and operating subsidies; homeownership
opportunities; emergency shelters and rapid rehousing
services; accessibility modifications; and efforts to
acquire and rehabilitate foreclosed, vacant or blighted
homes.
b) Administering housing programs that receive
appropriation from the Trust Fund (no more than 5 percent
of the moneys in the Trust Fund).
c) The cost of specified periodic audits.
5)Requires the Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) to develop and submit to the Legislature an investment
SB 391
Page 2
strategy for the Trust Fund, as specified. The investment
strategy shall do all of the following:
a) Identify the statewide needs, goals, objectives and
outcomes for housing for a five-year time period.
b) Promote a geographically balanced distribution of funds
including consideration of a direct allocation of funds to
local governments.
c) Emphasize investments that serve households that are at
or below 60 percent of media area income.
d) Meet specified minimum objectives, including encouraging
economic development and job creation, as specified.
6)Requires HCD, prior to submitting the investment strategy to
the Legislature, to hold at least four public workshops in
different regions of the state to inform the development of
the strategy.
7)Imposes specified audit and reporting requirements.
8)Requires the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), for
public works construction projects in excess of $1 million
funded from the Trust Fund, to monitor and enforce compliance
with applicable prevailing wage law.
9)Requires DIR to charge each person or entity awarding such a
contract the reasonable and directly related costs of
monitoring and enforcing compliance with prevailing wage
requirements.
10)Specifies that the amount charged by DIR shall not exceed
one-fourth of one percent of the amount of the contract.
11)Provides that all moneys received by DIR shall be deposited
into the existing State Public Works Enforcement Fund.
12)Specifies that the DIR fee and enforcement monitoring
provisions shall not apply to a project if a collective
bargaining agreement binds all of the contractors performing
work on the project, and that collective bargaining agreement
includes a mechanism for resolving disputes regarding the
payment of wages.
SB 391
Page 3
13)Makes other related and conforming changes.
14)Makes related legislative findings and declarations.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, this bill will result in unknown fee revenue gains
ranging from $300 million to $720 million per year depending on
the volume of recorded documents. The bill would result in
annual administrative costs of approximately $5.4 million to
fund up to 47 positions at the Department of Housing and
Community Development. In addition, there would be initial
audit costs of $250,000 to $350,000 and ongoing periodic costs
of $150,000 to $250,000 to the Bureau of State Audits.
COMMENTS : This bill enacts the California Homes and Jobs Act of
2013. Among other things, this bill imposes, beginning January
1, 2014, a fee of $75 on the recording of each real
estate-related document, except for those documents recorded in
connection with a transfer subject to a documentary transfer
tax, and directs the money to the California Homes and Jobs
Trust Fund (Trust Fund). The Legislature may then appropriate
these funds for specified purposes related to supporting housing
for low- and moderate-income households.
Policy Issues Heard in Another Assembly Policy Committee
This bill was previously heard in the Assembly Committee on
Housing and Community Development, which has primary
jurisdiction over the majority of the policy issues raised by
this proposal. Please see the committee analysis prepared by
that committee for a thorough discussion of the policy issues
and questions related to this bill.
This analysis will focus primarily on the issues within the
jurisdiction of the Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment -
provisions dealing with the payment of prevailing wage and a
proposed funding mechanism for the State Public Works
Enforcement Fund.
A Brief History of State and Federal Prevailing Wage Law
SB 391
Page 4
State prevailing wage laws vary from state to state, but do
share a common history that actually predates federal prevailing
wage law. Many of these state laws were enacted as part of
general reform efforts to improve working conditions at the end
of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries. Between
1891 and 1923, seven states adopted prevailing wage laws that
required payment of specified hourly wages on government
construction projects. The State of Kansas enacted the first
prevailing wage law in 1891.
Eighteen additional states and the federal government adopted
prevailing wage laws during the Great Depression of the 1930s
amidst concern that acceptance of the low bid, a common
requirement of government contracting for public projects when
government had become the major purchaser of construction, would
operate to reduce the wages paid to workers on those projects to
a level that would disrupt the local economy.
California's prevailing was law was enacted in 1931.
In general, the proponents of prevailing wage legislation wanted
to prevent the government from using its purchasing power to
undermine the wages of its citizens. It was believed that the
government should set an example, by paying the wages prevailing
in a locality for each occupation hired by government
contractors to build public projects. Thus, prevailing wage
laws are generally meant to ensure that wages commonly paid to
construction workers in a particular region will determine the
minimum wage paid to the same type of workers employed on
publicly funded construction projects.
Most public construction projects contracted for or by the
federal government or the District of Columbia are covered by
the federal prevailing wage law, the Davis-Bacon Act (Act),
while 33 states have prevailing wage laws, often referred to as
"little Davis-Bacon Acts," that encompass projects financed by
states and their political subdivisions.
The federal Davis-Bacon Act was enacted by Congress in 1931.
The Act requires workers employed under public construction
contracts of the federal government in excess of $2,000 to be
paid a minimum wage that the United States Department of Labor
determines to be prevailing for corresponding classes of
workers. In addition, sixty separate federal laws currently
SB 391
Page 5
specify the payment of Davis- Bacon wages for work prescribed.
The federal government also has two additional prevailing wage
laws - the Walsh-Healy Public Contracts Act of 1935 (which
covers federal contractors in manufacturing and supply
industries), and the O'Hara-McNamara Services Act of 1965 (which
covers service contracts).
The United States Supreme Court has stated the public policy
underlying the Davis-
Bacon Act as one of:
"protecting local wage standards by preventing contractors
from basing their bids on wages lower than those prevailing
in the area . . . [and] giving local labor and the local
contractor a fair opportunity to participate in this
building program." Universities Research Ass'n. v. Coutu
(1981) 450 U.S. 754, 773-774).
General Background on "Public Works" Under California Law
In general, "public works" is defined to include construction,
alteration, demolition, installation or repair work done under
contract and "paid for in whole or in part out of public funds."
Over a decade ago, there was much administrative and legislative
action over what constituted the term "paid for in whole or in
part out of public funds." This action culminated in the
enactment of SB 975 (Alarc�n), Chapter # 938, Statutes of 2001,
which codified a definition of "paid for in whole or in part out
of public funds" that included certain payments, transfers,
credits, reductions, waivers and performances of work. At the
time, supporters of SB 975 stated that it established a
definition that conformed to several precedential coverage
decisions made by the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR).
These coverage decisions defined payment by land, reimbursement
plans, installation, grants, waiver of fees, and other types of
public subsidy as public funds for purposes of prevailing wage
law. According to the sponsors, SB 975 was intended to remove
ambiguity regarding the definition of public subsidy of
development projects.
SB 391
Page 6
SB 975 also exempted certain affordable housing, residential and
private development projects that met certain criteria.
Follow-up legislation, SB 972 (Costa), Chapter # 1048, Statutes
of 2002, was intended to clarify the application of SB 975 and
was the result of extensive discussions between the State
Building and Construction Trades Council (sponsor of SB 975),
affordable housing advocates, and the Davis Administration.
Supporters of SB 972 contended that the original legislation had
unintended consequences for self-help housing and housing
rehabilitation projects. As a result of that compromise, SB 972
exempted from public works requirements the construction or
rehabilitation of privately-owned residential projects that met
certain criteria.
Why It Matters: "Prevailing Wage"
The determination of whether a project is deemed to constitute a
"public work" is important because the Labor Code requires
(except for projects of $1,000 or less) that the "prevailing
wage" to be paid to all workers employed on public works
projects.
Background on Labor Compliance and the State Public Works
Enforcement Fund
As discussed above, the laws regulating public works projects
require, among other things, that contractors and subcontractors
pay their workers not less than the general prevailing wage
rates as determined under the Labor Code. State prevailing wage
requirements are enforced both by contracting agencies, known as
"awarding bodies," through review of certified payroll records
and taking cognizance of violations, and by the state Labor
Commissioner (also known as the Chief of the Division of Labor
Standards Enforcement), through the investigation of complaints
and issuance of civil wage and penalty assessments.
Since the adoption of Labor Code Section 1771.5 in 1989, the
Director of DIR also has approved "labor compliance programs"
(LCPs) to monitor and enforce compliance with state prevailing
wage requirements on behalf of awarding bodies. The first
DIR-approved LCPs were established on a voluntary basis to
obtain higher exemptions from prevailing wage requirements under
SB 391
Page 7
the law. However, the Legislature later began to require
awarding bodies to use LCPs to monitor and enforce compliance on
specified projects, including school construction projects
funded by the Kindergarten-University Public Education
Facilities Bond Acts of 2002 and 2004, projects funded by the
Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach
Protection Act of 2002, and projects built under a variety of
statutes authorizing design-build procurement.
Dissatisfaction with the overall performance of LCPs led to the
adoption of SB 9 X2 (Padilla), Chapter 7, Statutes of the
2009-2010 Second Extraordinary Session in 2009. Essentially, SB
9 X2 replaced the LCP requirement in a variety of statutes with
a requirement to pay a fee for compliance monitoring and
enforcement by DIR on the same types of projects covered by
those statutes. SB 9 X2 also expanded the number of projects
that would be covered by this requirement by extending it to any
project funded in whole or in part by a state public works bond
rather than just the four bonds that previously had been subject
to an LCP requirement.
SB 9 X2 required the Director to establish the fees with the
approval of the Department of Finance for this service and to
adopt reasonable regulations setting forth the manner in which
DIR would enforce compliance on covered projects. The
legislation further provided that the new fee-based monitoring
and enforcement system would only apply to projects awarded
after the fees and regulations had been adopted. Thereafter,
the Director proposed and adopted regulations that, among other
things, addressed the new system's applicability, notices, fees,
fee waivers, the establishment of a Compliance Monitoring Unit
(CMU), payroll record review and other CMU monitoring and
investigative activities, complaints, and the withholding of
contract payments when payroll records are delinquent or
inadequate. These regulations were approved on June 29, 2010,
and became effective on August 1, 2010, making the provisions of
SB 9 X2 effective for projects for which the contract was
awarded on or after that date.
However, subsequent to the adoption of these regulations, bond
counsel for the State Public Works Board indicated that it was
unwilling to write an unqualified opinion letter for specified
bond sales due to potential questions about the legality of
using bond funds to pay for fees in the manner prescribed in SB
9 X2 and the regulations.
SB 391
Page 8
As a result, DIR sought to amend and delete portions of the
regulations on a temporary emergency basis, for the purpose of
suspending and postponing the commencement of fee-based
compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR on public works
projects until these legal issues were resolved.
As a result, follow-up legislation, AB 436 (Solorio) was enacted
in 2011 to address these issues. Among other things, AB 436
required DIR to monitor and enforce compliance with applicable
prevailing wage requirements for any public works project paid
for in whole or part out of public funds that are derived from
bonds issued by the state, and shall charge each awarding body
for the reasonable and directly-related costs of monitoring and
enforcing compliance with the prevailing wage requirements on
each such project. AB 436 stated that the reasonable and
directly-related costs of monitoring and enforcing compliance
with the prevailing wage requirements on a public works project
incurred by DIR are payable by the awarding body of such public
works project as a cost of construction. AB 436 also stated
that the reasonable and directly-related costs incurred by DIR
in monitoring and enforcing compliance with the prevailing wage
requirements for an awarding body on any public works project
paid for out of public funds that are derived from state-issued
bonds is a necessary and prudent oversight activity and
constitutes an inherent cost of construction of the authorized
public works project, payable from state bond proceeds allocated
to such construction.
SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL :
This bill provides the following requirement for construction
projects in excess of $1,000,000 that are funded in whole or in
part from the California Homes and Jobs Trust Fund, and that are
public works within the meaning of existing law:
"The Department of Industrial Relations shall monitor and
enforce compliance with applicable prevailing wage
requirements for any construction contract on a project
subject to this section and shall charge each person or
entity awarding a construction contract for the reasonable
and directly related costs of monitoring and enforcing
compliance with the prevailing wage requirements. The
department, with the approval of the Director of Finance,
shall determine the rate or rates, which the department may
from time to time amend, that the department shall charge
SB 391
Page 9
to recover the reasonable and directly related costs of
performing the monitoring and enforcement services for
public works projects. However, the amount charged by the
department shall not exceed one-fourth of 1 percent of the
amount of the contract."
This bill also provides that all moneys received by DIR pursuant
to this bill shall be deposited into the State Public Works
Enforcement Fund.
This bill also provides that these requirements shall not apply
to a project if a collective bargaining agreement binds all of
the contractors performing work on the project, and that
collective bargaining agreement includes a mechanism for
resolving disputes regarding the payment of wages.
COMMITTEE STAFF COMMENT :
Significant concerns have been expressed that the statutory
funding mechanism established by SB 9X 2 and AB 436 has not been
sufficient to provide the requisite level of funding to ensure
adequate enforcement by DIR and has resulted in a "fundamental
fiscal flaw" in the program. Specific concerns that have been
identified include: 1) exclusive dependence on restrictive bond
funding; and 2) an arbitrary spending cap for each project
developed without regard to the level of enforcement needed in
the aggregate, or on a project-to-project basis. As a
subsequent Budget Change Proposal from DIR concluded, "The
result is a labor law enforcement program which cannot be
effectively deployed, due to a rigid funding cap at the project
level, which lacks any flexibility to direct resources as
determined by investigation and/or data."
One of the most recent budget trailer bills (SB 71) made some
changes to address the short-term funding issues in the State
Public Works Enforcement Fund, including loans from other
programs and other changes to the existing statutory funding
mechanism. However, the consensus is that there is still a need
to address the long-term "fundamental fiscal flaw" in the
program.
As this bill moves forward, the author may wish to work closely
with DIR to ensure that this bill will provide adequate funding
for prevailing wage enforcement and not repeat any of the
funding flaws contained in the prior statutory mechanism.
SB 391
Page 10
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT :
According to the author's office, everyone in California needs a
safe and affordable place to call home. For United States
military veterans, former foster youth, families with children,
people with disabilities, seniors on fixed incomes, and other
vulnerable Californians, however, the housing crisis is not
over. Millions of Californians are caught in the "perfect
storm" - mortgages remain out of reach, credit standards have
tightened, and the foreclosure crisis has pushed more people
into a rental market already suffering from decades of short
supply - leading to record-setting rent increases. The most
vulnerable, who struggled to make rent before the foreclosure
crisis, face even more uncertainty in today's rental housing
market. They risk joining the more than 130,000 Californians
who are homeless on any given night.
Moreover, rents and mortgages within the reach of working
families are critical to maintaining California's business
competitiveness. Numerous business groups say California needs
to increase the supply of housing options affordable to workers
so companies can compete for the talent that drives California's
economy.
At the same time, California's investment in affordable homes
has dried up. State agencies have awarded nearly all of the
voter-approved bond funding for affordable housing. Likewise,
the elimination of redevelopment agencies has cut off funding
from the low- and moderate-income housing set aside. This bill
begins to restore California's historic investments in
affordable homes by creating an ongoing, pay-as-you-go source of
funding dedicated to affordable housing development.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION :
Opponents contend that the proposed fee established by this bill
has no relation to affordable housing and places additional
financial burdens on ordinary Californians. They point out that
some recordings or transactions involve more than one document,
in which case the per-document fee will add to the already
substantial cost of recording. In addition, county recorders
will encounter significant increases in staff time to collect
fees and address unsatisfied customers.
SB 391
Page 11
The California Credit Union League (CCUL) argues that the new
tax imposed by this bill would result in their members having to
incur additional costs when refinancing their home loans or
looking to modify their home loans. CCUL states that during
these difficult times, when credit unions are trying to keep
their members in their homes and are recording a variety of
different real estate documents in order to do so, it is very
important that we do not increase costs on credit union members
who want to take advantage of these services.
Finally, the Associated Builders and Contractors of California
(ABC) contends that this bill essentially "mandates" the use of
a project labor agreement because it exempts projects with a
project labor agreement from reimbursing DIR for prevailing wage
enforcement costs. ABC contends that the use of a project labor
agreement usually results in higher construction costs for
taxpayers.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
A Community of Friends
AARP
Abode Communities
Advent Companies
Affordable Housing Management Association of Northern CA,
Nevada, and Hawaii
Affordable Housing Management Association, Pacific Southwest
AFSCME
Alameda County Board of Supervisors
Alameda County Developmental Disabilities Council
Alameda County Transportation Commission
Alpha Construction Company
AMCAL Multi-Housing
American Baptist Homes of the West
American Planning Association, California Chapter
Amity Foundation
Amstutz Associates
Angelus Plaza
Ashwood Construction
Asian Pacific Environmental Network
Aspiranet
Association of Regional Center Agencies
Asthma Coalition of Los Angeles County
SB 391
Page 12
Bay Area Business Roundtable
Bay Area Community Land Trust
Bay Area Council
Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative
BRC Advisors
BRIDGE Housing
Building Industry Association of Southern CA, Orange County
Chapter
Burbank Housing Development Corporation
Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation
Cahill Contractors
California Apartment Association
California Association of Housing Authorities
California Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies
California Building Industry Association
California Coalition for Rural Housing
California Coalition for Youth
California Conference of Carpenters
California Council for Affordable Housing
California Council of Community Mental Health Agencies
California Community Reinvestment Corporation
California Disability Services Association
California Housing Consortium (co-sponsor)
California Housing Partnership Corporation
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California Mental Health Directors Association
California Mental Health Planning Council
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence
California Police Chiefs Association
California Reinvestment Coalition
California Retailers Association
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
California School Employees Association
Carson Chamber of Commerce
Casa Major
Center for Elders' Independence
Central City Association
Century Housing
Century Villages at Cabrillo
Cesar Chavez Foundation
CHISPA
Cities of Berkeley, Burbank, Calexico, Del Mar, El Centro, El
Monte, Emeryville, Fairfield, Goleta, Jurupa Valley,
Livingston, Los Angeles, Lynwood, Oakland, Oxnard, Pasadena,
Sacramento, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Jose, San Luis
SB 391
Page 13
Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Monica, Torrance,
Ventura, Vista, and West Hollywood
Coachella Valley Housing Coalition
Community Corporation of Santa Monica
Community Health Improvement Partners
Community Housing Improvement Program
Community Housing Opportunities Corporation
Community Housing Works
Community Working Group
Contra Costa Health Services
Corporation for Supportive Housing
Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco
Curtom-Dunsmuir
Dignity Health
DMB Pacific Ventures
Domus Development
Drug Policy Alliance
Duncan Group
EAH Housing
East Bay Developmental Disabilities Legislative Coalition
East Bay Housing Organizations
East LA Community Corporation
Ecumenical Council Pasadena Area Congregations
Eden Housing
Enterprise Community Partners
Environmental Health Coalition
Episcopal Community Services of San Francisco
First Place for Youth
Foundation for Affordable Housing
Fullerton Chamber of Commerce
Gonzalez Goodale Architects
Habitat for Humanity California
Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley
Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco
Habitat for Humanity Greater Los Angeles
Habitat for Humanity Inland Valley
Habitat for Humanity Pomona Valley
Habitat for Humanity Riverside
Habitat for Humanity San Gabriel Valley
Habitat for Humanity San Luis Obispo County
Habitat for Humanity Santa Cruz County
Hamilton Family Center
Highridge Costa Housing Partners
Hollywood Community Housing Corporation
Home Builders Association of Tulare/Kings Counties
SB 391
Page 14
Home Start
Homes for Life Foundation
Housing Authority for the City of San Buenaventura
Housing California (co-sponsor)
Housing Choices Coalition for People with Developmental
Disabilities
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
Housing Works
ICON Builders
InnerCity Struggle
Integrity Housing
Interfaith Community Services
International Association for Women of Color Day
Jamboree Housing Corporation
John Stewart Company
Kennedy Commission
L.A. Family Housing
LA Voice
LA Works
Larkin Street Youth Services
Laurin Associates
Lauterbach and Associates
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
Leading Age California
League of California Cities
League of Women Voters of California
LeSar Development Consultants
LifeSTEPS
LINC Housing
Little Tokyo Service Center
Loaves and Fishes
Local Initiatives Support Corporation
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles Business Council
Los Angeles Business Leaders Task Force on Homelessness
Los Angeles Community Action Network
Los Angeles Regional Reentry Partnership
Lutheran Office of Public Policy
Mammoth Lakes Housing
Marin Workforce Housing Trust
Mental Health America of Los Angeles
Mental Health Systems
Mercy Housing
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
MidPen Housing Corporation
SB 391
Page 15
Move LA
Multicultural Communities for Mobility
Mutual Housing California
Nancy Lewis Associates
Napa Valley Community Housing
National Community Renaissance
National Council of La Raza
National Housing Law Project
National Multiple Sclerosis Society
Natural Resources Defense Council
Navigage
Neighborhood Housing Services of Los Angeles County
Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services
NeighborWorks Orange County
Nevada/California Indian Housing Association
New Directions
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
Northern California Community Loan Fund
Northern Circle Indian Housing Authority
Opportune Companies
Orange County Business Council
Orange County Housing Trust
Pacific Clinics
Palm Communities
Partner Energy
Pasadena Police Department
Pasadena Public Health Department
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Peninsula Interfaith Action
Penny Lane Centers
People Assisting the Homeless
Peoples' Self-Help Housing Corporation
PICO California
PMG
PolicyLink
Public Advocates
Related California
Resources for Community Development
Ruiz Brothers Construction Co.
Rural Communities Housing Development Corporation
Rural Community Assistance Corporation
Sacramento Homeless Organizing Committee
Sacramento Housing Alliance
San Benito County Housing and Economic Development Department
San Diego Community Land Trust
SB 391
Page 16
San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce
San Gabriel Valley Consortium on Homelessness
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
San Luis Obispo County Housing Trust Fund
San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
Self-Help Enterprises
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) California State
Council
Sierra Business Council
Sierra Club California
Silicon Valley Bank
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Skid Row Housing Trust
Sonoma County Task Force for the Homeless
Southeast Asian Community Alliance
Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing
SPUR
SRO Housing Corporation
St. Joseph Center
St. Joseph Health
St. Paul's Senior Home and Services
Stand Up for Neighborly Novato
State Building and Construction Trades Council of California
State Independent Living Council
State Treasurer Bill Lockyer
Step Up on Second
Sun Country Builders
Sunseri Construction
Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, Los Angeles County
T.R.U.S.T. South LA
TELACU Residential Management, Inc.
Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation
Thai Community Development Center
The Arc
The KTGY Group
Thomas Safran and Associates
Turning Point Community Programs
United Cerebral Palsy in California
United Homeless Healthcare Partners
United States Veterans Initiative
United Way of Fresno County
United Way of Greater Los Angeles
United Way of the Bay Area
United Way Silicon Valley
United Ways of California
SB 391
Page 17
Valley Economic Development Center
Venice Community Housing Corporation
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. Greater El Monte Post
Visionary Home Builders
Wakeland Housing and Development Corporation
Walton Construction Services
Ward Economic Development Corporation
West Angeles Community Development Corporation
Western Center on Law and Poverty
Westport Construction
Women Organizing Resources, Knowledge, and Services
Opposition
Air Conditioning Trade Association
Associa
Associated Builders and Contractors of California
Board of Equalization Member George Runner
Board of Equalization Member Michelle Steel
Butte County Board of Supervisors
Butte County Clerk-Recorder
Calaveras County Clerk-Recorder
California Association of Legal Document Assistants
California Association of Realtors
California Credit Union League
California Document Preparers
California Escrow Association
California Land Surveyors Association
California Land Title Association
California Mortgage Association
California Taxpayers Association
Cities of Camarillo, Cypress, and Waterford
Colusa County Clerk Recorder
Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder
Counties of Butte, Colusa, Lassen, Mono, Orange, San Luis
Obispo, and Sierra
County of Siskiyou Board of Supervisors
County Recorders' Association of California
El Dorado County Recorder-Clerk
Glenn County Clerk-Recorder
Hamman Real Estate
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Inyo County Clerk Recorder
Kern County Assessor-Recorder
Madera County Clerk-Recorder
SB 391
Page 18
Marin County Assessor-Recorder-Clerk
Mariposa County Assessor-Recorder
Michelle Steel, VC State Board of Equalization
Napa County Assessor-Recorder Clerk
Nevada County Clerk-Recorder
Orange County Clerk-Recorder
Placer County Clerk-Recorder-Registrar of Voters
Plumas County Clerk
Plumas County Clerk
Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors Association of California
Riverside County Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder
San Bernardino County Recorder-Clerk
San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors
San Luis Obispo County Clerk-Recorder
Santa Barbara County Clerk, Recorder and Assessor
Sierra County Board of Supervisors
Sierra County Clerk-Recorder
Sonoma County Clerk-Recorder-Assessor
Stanislaus County Clerk-Recorder
Tehama County Clerk-Recorder
Western Electrical Contractors Association
Western Mining Alliance
Yolo County Clerk-Recorder
Analysis Prepared by : Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091