BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  AB 436
                                                                  Page  1

          CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
          AB 436 (Solorio)
          As Amended  August 30, 2011
          Majority vote
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |ASSEMBLY:  |     |(June 1, 2011)  |SENATE: |22-10|(September 7,  |
          |           |     |                |        |     |2011)          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
                     (vote not relevant)
                     
           Original Committee Reference:    L. & E.  

           SUMMARY  :  Makes changes to existing law related to a prevailing 
          wage enforcement mechanism in order to address potential legal 
          questions about the funding method of that process.  

           The Senate amendments  delete the contents of the bill and 
          instead:

          1)Provide that the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) 
            shall 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.

          2)State 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.

          3)Provide that the awarding body may elect not to receive or 
            expend amounts from bond proceeds to pay such costs of the 
            project; however, such election does not relieve the awarding 
            body from reimbursing DIR for monitoring and enforcing 
            prevailing wage requirements on the project.

          4)State legislative intent that monitoring and enforcing 
            compliance with the applicable prevailing wage requirements on 
            a public works project paid for out of public funds that are 
            derived from state-issued bonds, whether by use of an approved 








                                                                  AB 436
                                                                 Page  2

            labor compliance program or other method, is and historically 
            has been a necessary and prudent oversight activity, and under 
            existing law, the authority to use bond proceeds for 
            construction of a public works project inherently includes 
            authority to pay reasonable costs of such oversight activities 
            that are directly related to such construction from state bond 
            proceeds allocated to such construction.

          5)State 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.

          6)Specify that the enforcement fee requirements do not apply to 
            state bond funded projects and specified design-build projects 
            if the awarding body has entered into a collective bargaining 
            agreement that binds all of the contractors performing work on 
            the contract and that includes a mechanism for resolving 
            disputes about the payment of wages.

          7)Allow the Director of the Department of Finance to authorize a 
            loan not to exceed $4.3 million from the Uninsured Employers 
            Benefit Trust Fund to the State Public Works Enforcement Fund 
            to meet the start-up needs of DIR's compliance monitoring 
            unit.

          8)Make related and conforming changes to existing law.

          9)Add a co-author.

           AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY  , this bill provided that specified 
          work related to renewable energy generation is considered 
          "public works" for purposes of prevailing wage law.

           FISCAL EFFECT :  Unknown
           
          COMMENTS  :  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 








                                                                  AB 436
                                                                  Page  3

          "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 
          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 9, Statutes of the 
          2009-2010 Second Extraordinary Session.  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 








                                                                  AB 436
                                                                  Page  4

          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.

          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.

          According to DIR, discussions have occurred over the past 
          several months with bond counsel and other interested 
          stakeholders regarding resolving the potential legal questions 
          at issue with the funding mechanism.  Therefore, according to 
          DIR this bill would make the necessary statutory changes to 
          address these potential issues and allow the enforcement 
          mechanism to move forward.

          This bill was substantially amended in the Senate and the 
          Assembly-approved provisions of this bill were deleted.


           Analysis Prepared by  :    Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 

                                                                FN: 0002426