Posts Tagged ‘Washington Legislature’

Washington Legislation Wants to Define “Green” Homes

My wife and I were looking for condominiums in the Seattle area a few years ago, and every place we inspected marketed themselves as “green built.”   Being a LEEP AP, I asked a few questions about what the label meant.   Most of the time, it meant nothing.

That’s precisely what a new bill in the Washington legislature is trying to prevent.

The practice of deceptive green marketing has a name.   Wikipedia defines Greenwashing as follows:

Greenwashing (green whitewash) is the practice of companies disingenuously spinning their products and policies as environmentally friendly, such as by presenting cost cuts as reductions in use of resources. It is a deceptive use of green PR or green marketing.

Greenwashing is so serious it has its own Greenwashing Index.

The new bill was introduced just this January 2010 by Senators Becker and Fraser, and requires the state building code council to adopt rules to define “green” home and “energy efficient” home for residential units and residential buildings.   It seeks to prohibit builders and developers from marketing or selling a home as “green” or “energy efficient” unless it meets the specifications.

As currently written, the code must be written by December 2012.  Thus far, the bill has strong support.

Builders and Developers should keep a close eye on this legislation, especially as they begin new projects in the coming years hoping to market the project to green-seeking buyers.

If the bill passes, it will be interesting to see how the definitions are drafted, and whether they will incorporate already existing certification programs, such as the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED program (as a recent amendment to the bill suggests).   Follow the bill at Washington Votes here, or stay tuned to the Northwest Green Building Law Blog.

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

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

Residential Sprinkler System Bill Floating in Washington Legislature

A bill that would slightly amend RCW 18.160.050, RCW 82.02.100 and RCW 70.119A.180 is floating around in the Washington legislature this session.   While not an earth-shattering measure, the bill (sponsored by Representative Simpson), seeks to encourage builders, homeowners and water purveyors to voluntarily install sprinkler systems in private residences.

Read the Washington Votes summary of the bill here (and track it).

Of course, sprinkler systems are all around us in commercial buildings, where they are frequently even mandatory elements of the facility’s construction.   While private residences have smoke detectors, they rarely have sprinkler systems…and the question being asked more frequently these days is “why?”

The U.S. Fire Administration through FEMA states as follows on the topic:

It is the official position of the U.S. Fire Administration that all American should be protected against death, injury and property loss resulting from fire in their residences.  All homes should be equipped with smoke alarms and automatic fire sprinklers…

(Check out FEMA website for very interesting statistics about residential fires and sprinkler systems).

The bill currently pending in the Washington legislature looks to help push sprinklers in private residences by eradicating barriers that prevent the installation of systems in private residences, by promoting education on the effectiveness of residential systems and by providing financial and regulatory incentives to homeowners, builders and water purveyors for voluntarily installing sprinkler systems.

Check out the digest:

Eradicates barriers that prevent the voluntary installation of sprinkler systems in private residences by promoting education regarding the effectiveness of residential fire sprinklers.

Provides financial and regulatory incentives to homeowners, builders, and water purveyors for voluntarily installing the systems.

Allows expenditures from the fire protection contractor license fund for use in developing and publishing educational materials related to the effectiveness of residential fire sprinklers.

Prohibits a person installing a residential fire sprinkler system in a single-family home from being required to pay the fire operations portion of the impact fee.

Exempts a public water system from liability for damages resulting from shutting off water to a residential home with an installed fire sprinkler system if the shut off is due to routine maintenance, nonpayment by the customer, or water system emergencies.

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

Posted in:     Regulations, Washington  /  Tags: , , ,   /   2 Comments

House Bill in Washington Alters Bond Requirements for Public Contracts

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

Two New Washington Laws Contractors Must Know From the 2009 Legislature

As we enter it a new year, we thought it was prudent to review what the Washington legislature passed last year that is now law and affecting the construction industry.

Earlier this week, we wrote about the small amendments to the Contractor Registration Act.

More changes to Washington’s regulatory scheme passed into law in 2009 aside from these small amendments.   In this post, we’ll discuss SB 5613 which authorizes L&I to issue stop work orders on employers not in compliance with workers compensation requirements, and SB 5904 which defines an “independent contractor” on public works projects.

Stop Work Orders Allowed on Contractors Who Do Not Pay Workers Compensation

SB 5613 was passed by the Washington legislature, and became effective in July 2009.   This new law provides Labor & Industries with an additional mechanism to enforce the worker’s compensation requirements for contractors:  stopping work.

Previously, L&I could fine employers and contractors in violation of the workers compensation provisions, but couldn’t actually force the contractor to stop work.   Now, a new section has been added to RCW §51.48 giving L&I this stop work authority.

If an employer is in violation of the workers comp requirements, L&I can force the employer to stop work on that project (and other projects where there are violations) until the employer gains compliance.   Becoming compliant will require the payment of any assessed penalties and interest.

What happens if the employer doesn’t stop work after being so ordered?   Paragraph (4) of the new section subjects the employer to a $1000 per day penalty until the employer is in compliance.

The new section is clearly aimed at punishing employers dearly if they are not compliant with the workers compensation statutes.   Where penalties alone didn’t always work in the past, now L&I can hurt contractors on jobs.  If an employer must stop work, obvious problems arise:  will they get paid for work done?  will they be responsible for delay damages on the project?   will the job be given to another contractor?

Getting clever and opening a new entity with less baggage will be of little use under the new section.  Paragraph (7) contemplates this circumstance, and provides that stop work orders are effective against “any successor…business entity that has one or more of the same principals or officers…”

Read the passed SB 5613 here.

Independent Contractor Defined for the Purposes of Prevailing Wages

In the past, much argument has ensued on public works between Washington’s Department of Labor & Industries and contractors over whether a party or entity is an employee or an independent contractor.

The consequence to the distinction is clear.   If an employee, prevailing wage rates must be paid.  If an independent contractor, the prevailing wage rate may not be required.

Well, SB 5904 adds a section to RCW 39.12 to clear up the ambiguity.

Regardless of how an employer attempts to label a party/entity, they will be considered a laborer, worker or mechanic unless all of these factors are met:

  1. They have been and is free from control or direction over the performance of the service, but unde under the contract and in fact;
  2. The service provided is either outside the usual course of business for the hiring contractor or the service is performed outside the places of business for the hiring contractor;
  3. The party/entity is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business of the same nature as that involved in the instant contract;
  4. The party/entity is responsible for filing at the next applicable filing period a schedule of expenses with the IRS;
  5. The party/entity has an active and valid certificate of registration with the department of revenue, and all other required registrations;
  6. The party/entity maintains a separate set of books or records reflecting all items of income or expense of the business; and
  7. The party/entity is a registered contractor, if required.

Read the passed bill’s full text here.

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

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

Did You Notice the Amendments to Washington's Contractor Registration Act?

Now that 2009 has drawn to a close, we have decided to review some movement in the Washington Legislature last year as it affects the construction industry.   Later this week, we’ll write about two new laws, one about workers compensation insurance enforcement, and the other about the definition of an “independent contractor” on prevailing wage jobs.

Today, however, we’ll focus on some small changes to the Washington Contractor Registration Act.

We previously wrote about the Contractor Registration Act in Washington, highlighting that the failure to comply with statutory requirements can result in severe penalties.  Many may not have taken notice of HB 1555 in the Washington legislature in 2009, but it passed the House and Senate, was signed by the governor and is now already law in the state.

The Reasoning Behind Amendments

All of these amendments were suggested (and passed) at the recommendation of the legislative task force on the underground economy in the construction industry.   This is a group put together in 2007 that has spent the past two years investigating those instances where contractors have worked without a license…and came up with ways to stop it.

The recommendations were made to the Washington legislature at the beginning of the 2009 legislative session, and have evolved into law.

What Has Changed?

This bill made some significant amendments to Washington statutes regulating contractor licensing.  Here are a few examples of important amendments:

  • Contractors must maintain and have available for L&I to inspect a list of all direct subcontractors and a copy of their certificate of registration.  Clearly, this is intended to make enforcement easier for L&I and shift the burden on contractor licensing up the chain.
  • Licensing Agencies are now granted authority to check on a company’s licensing status with another department.   So, for instance, when a contractor seeks a business license from King County, the county can contact L&I and ensure that that the contractor is registered according to law.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Posted in:     Law Changes & Updates, Licensing  /  Tags: , , ,   /   Leave a comment