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)


         ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
        |COMMITTEE VOTE:  |5-2  |(September 8, 2011) |RECOMMENDATION: |concur    |
        |                 |     |                    |                |          |
         ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

        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.








                                                                AB 436
                                                                Page  2


        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 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 








                                                                AB 436
                                                               Page  3

        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 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 








                                                                AB 436
                                                                Page  4

        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.

        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: 0002870