Posts Tagged ‘Northwest Construction Law Blog’

Contractor Violation Rules May Finally Get A Break in Washington

On March 23, 2010 Author By Scott Wolfe Jr        

Over the past few years, a joint legislative task force on the underground construction economy has been responsible for a number of changes to the Washington contractor licensing statutes, and all of these changes had made the laws more strict and aggressive against parties performing construction work without a license.

A new bill in the Washington legislature is recommended by the same task force, but this one may finally give the underground construction economy a break (although the bill will tighten areas of regulation as well).

Introduced by Representative Steve Conway, this bill would allow a fine imposed against an unregistered contractor to be reduced if the contractor registers for an approved training course within 10 days of being notified of the infraction.  Notice some key terms:  ”reduced” and not eliminated, and “may” and not shall.

But, for those operating without a license, or those who are operating and just don’t know they need a license…this bill could provide them with a break to allow the violating party to get legal.

Other components of the bill are not as violator friendly.     Read the full text of the bill here.

This article was originally posted on Wolfe Law Group’s topic-specific Northwest Construction Law Blog.

Posted in:     Licensing, Washington  /  Tags: , , , , , ,   /   Leave a comment

How to Collect on a NSF Check in Oregon

On March 18, 2010 Author By Scott Wolfe Jr        

Two weeks ago, we posted an article on How To Collect on a NSF Check in Washington.  Today, we address the same issue under the laws of Oregon.

In the construction business, NSF checks are a fact of life.   And sometimes, the NSF checks may cause big problems because they’re written in amounts that exceed $10,000, $50,000 or $100,000.

In Oregon, like in Washington, those who draft NSF checks have a specific window of time to make payment on the check amount, or be subjected to statutory penalties and their adversaries litigation costs.

I just published a Legal Guide on Avvo that gives step by step instructions to folks on how to collect against a NSF check.   Unlike many states, like Washington and Louisiana, that requires the use of particular forms and language, the Oregon statutes are very bland in their requirements.   To charge interest, penalties and legal expenses on a party who writes a hot check in Oregon, the recieving party need only send a written notice of the NSF check.   There’s no requirements as to the form of the notice, or how the notice should be sent.

Although, of course, we have our recommendations.

In sending the notice, you should send it through some service that allows your company to track its mailing and delivery.   In writing the notice, be certain that you identify the check in question, and indicate that if the check isn’t paid within 30 days, you’ll seek interest, penalties, attorneys fees and other costs allowed by the Oregon statutes.

This article was originally posted on Wolfe Law Group’s topic-specific Northwest Construction Law Blog.

Posted in:     Collections  /  Tags: , , , ,   /   Leave a comment

Bill Proposes Extending Reach of Prevailing Wage Laws in Washington

On March 16, 2010 Author By Scott Wolfe Jr        

In the current economy, the construction industry finds itself relying very heavily on public works projects.   It seems that even those projects not classified as a true public works is still relying on some sort of public funding, loan or credit.

And this is why contractors should be take note of HB 1992 in the Washington legislature, which seeks to add a provision to 39.12 RCW to apply those prevailing wage requirements to construction projects that utilize tax incentives, public loans or public land that is sold or leased.

If the project has a touch of public funding, in other words, the prevailing wage requirements will apply.

Read the full text of the proposed addition to the statutes, as it currently exists, here.

This article was originally posted on Wolfe Law Group’s topic-specific Northwest Construction Law Blog.

Posted in:     Prevailing Wages, Washington  /  Tags: , , , , ,   /   Leave a comment

Washington Bill Ties Sales Tax Deferrals to LEED Standards

On January 26, 2010 Author By Scott Wolfe Jr        

Thanks to the Beer With A Construction Lawyer blog for pointing out a new bill in the Washington State Legislature that has green building implications.    The bill is sponsored by Senators Kastama, Rockefeller, and Ranker.

The bill, if passed, would offer very aggressive tax incentives to projects that meet LEED certification standards.   Here is the breakdown:

Platinum Certification:   100% Sales and Use Tax Deferred

Gold Certification:  75% Sales and Use Tax Deferred

Silver Certification:  50% Sales and Use Tax Deferred

Less than Silver:  25% Sales and Use Tax Deferred

Projects would have to apply for the deferral before initiation of the construction.

The bill is interesting to green building nerds because it completely relies on the LEED green building standards published by the United States Green Building Council.   While the LEED program is certainly the most widespread of programs in the country, it’s not without its critics.   See Chris Cheatham’s recent article on his Green Building Law Update blog analyzing the complaint against the USGBC for using anti-competitive practices.

You can follow this bill at the legislature’s website, or by subscribing to the bill’s RSS feed.   Download the original bill text.

This article was originally posted on Wolfe Law Group’s topic-specific Northwest Construction Law Blog.

Posted in:     Washington  /  Tags: , , , , ,   /   Leave a comment

House Bill in Washington Alters Bond Requirements for Public Contracts

On January 26, 2010 Author By Scott Wolfe Jr        

Representatives Hinkle and Kretz introduced House Bill 3055 yesterday, whose digest explains will “modif[y] provisions regarding contractors’ bonds for public contracts.”

If passed, the bill would amend RCW 39.04.155 and 39.08.010, and make the following substantive changes:

  • Contracts $35,000 or less would not require a bond
  • On contracts between $35,000 and $100,000, in lieu of a bond, the county or public entity may retain 25% of the contract amount for a period of 30 days after final acceptance of the work

Currently, bonds are required on every project, with the state having the option to retain 50% of contract funds in lieu of a bond when the contract is less than $35,000.00.

The suggested amendment here seems to make practical sense.

Requiring a bond for tiny public contracts is a bit overkill, and the 50% retainage figure is near unworkable.    The amended figures and bond requirements feels more aligned with the practical needs of smaller public projects.

Stay tuned here for updates on this bill, or you can follow it online or subscribe to its RSS feed.   Download the original bill here.

This article was originally posted on Wolfe Law Group’s topic-specific Northwest Construction Law Blog.

Posted in:     State & Federal Contracting, Washington  /  Tags: , , , , ,   /   Leave a comment
Next Page »