Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation recently published its Enterprising Cities Regulatory Climate Index 2014 (Index), assessing 5 areas of regulation across 10 cities in the United States: (1) Dallas, Texas, (2) St. Louis, Missouri, (3) Raleigh, North Carolina, (4) Boston, Massachusetts, (5) Atlanta, Georgia, (6) Detroit, Michigan, (7) Chicago, Illinois, (8) Los Angeles, California, (9) San Francisco, California, and (10) New York, New York.

The Index’s 5 areas of regulation represent the life cycle of a business: (1) starting a business (see Table 5), (2) dealing with construction permits (see Table 6), (3) registering property (see Table 7), (4) paying taxes (see Table 8), and (5) enforcing contracts (see Table 9). To measure the regulatory burden, it looked at (A) the number of procedures, (B) time to comply with the requirement, and (C) the costs and fees paid to the government or service providers that are required by the local laws. The Index’s scores and ranks are the simple average of ranking of all 5 areas of business regulation in each of the 10 cities; each of the 5 areas of business regulation is again the simple average of the normalized values of procedures, time, and costs; and each component in an area of business regulation is ranked relative to the other 9 cities.

The Index concludes that “[a]mong these 10 cities, Dallas and St. Louis impose the lightest regulatory burden on small businesses. Raleigh, Boston, Atlanta, and Detroit have moderate overall scores. New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Chicago, on the other hand, are marked by high regulatory requirements to open and operate small businesses (Table 3).” The overall scores of the 5 areas of regulation for the 10 cities indexed (see Table 4) are:

1. Dallas — 89.5
2. St. Louis — 85.2
3. Raleigh — 73.7
4. Boston — 73.3
5. Atlanta — 72.7
6. Detroit — 64.9
7. Chicago — 52.9
8. Los Angeles — 47.9
9. San Francisco — 41.3
10. New York — 34.7

With regard to the second are of regulation — dealing with construction permits — the Index recognizes that obtaining construction permits varies substantially across the nation, including the cost, time and required procedures depending on the zoning approval process, environmental reviews and building permit reviews. It reported that the regulatory costs average 1% of the construction costs and 3 months of processing to complete a set of 15 standard procedures for both pre- and post-construction phases for small commercial buildings.

It also reported that the costs of construction permits varies substantially across the nation — Dallas, Raleigh, and St. Louis have the lowest fees for administrative compliance, ranging from 0.3% to 0.7% of the total cost of construction; Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, and New York City have moderate costs of permits, ranging from 0.8% to 1.3% of total construction costs; and Los Angeles and San Francisco have the highest costs of permits at more than 3.0% of total construction costs. It estimated that the costs to obtain construction permits in San Francisco and Los Angeles are about 10 times the permit costs in Dallas and Raleigh, and the waiting times for permits are as low as two months in Raleigh, Dallas, and St. Louis, but at least twice that in Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. It concluded that these costs are largely driven by the additional procedures required by those cities (e.g., San Francisco requires builders to submit a city environmental quality review that would cost an extra $50,000 in fees (the equivalent of 1.6% of the construction costs) and it takes (at least) an extra 66 days to review; Los Angeles has a similar procedure, but with a lower cost). In contrast, Atlanta, Dallas, and Raleigh offer expedited and streamlined services for construction firms when applying for permits and provide express services for inspection.

Additional Source: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation, Enterprising Cities Regulatory Climate Index 2014 (May 11, 2014); The Business Journals, Hey business owner – you want easy? Try Dallas. Want hard? Try New York (May 12, 2014)

Yesterday, Pillsbury attorneys Peter Wyckoff, Mike Barr, Jeff Knight, Anthony Cavender, and Matt Morrison published their advisory titled The U.S. Supreme Court Upholds EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., Paving the Way to Further Use of Cap-and-Trade Programs to Control Emissions of SO2 and NOx from Electric Power Plants. The Advisory discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s April 24, 6-2 decision, in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., No. 12-1182, 572 U. S. ____, 2014 WL 1672044 (2014), upholding EPA’s latest version of a regional cap-and-trade program under the federal Clean Air Act to control those electric power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide (S02) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) that contribute to interstate formation of fine particle and ozone (smog) pollution.

If you have any questions about the content of this blog, please contact the Pillsbury attorney with whom you regularly work or Peter Wyckoff, Mike Barr, Jeff Knight, Anthony Cavender, or Matt Morrison, the authors of this blog.

Biz2Credit identifies the top 25 cities for small business in 2014 and 5 of them are in California, 4 are in Florida, and 3 are in Texas. For its analysis, Biz2Credit defined “small businesses” as “companies having fewer than 250 employees or less than $10 million in annual revenues.” Cities are rated based on “a weighted average that includes annual revenue, credit score, age of business (in months), cash flow, debt-to-income ratio, incorporation (C-Corp or LLC vs. sole proprietorship), and business owners’ personal credit scores.” Biz2Credit reports that it analyzed 12,000 businesses with less than 250 employees and less than $10 million in annual revenues from across the country that have been in operation for more than 1 year.

Its top 25 cities for small business in 2014 are:

1. San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA
2. Detroit-Dearborn, MI 3. Denver, CO 4. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA
5. San Francisco-Oakland, CA
6. Las Vegas, NV 7. New York metro area 8. Atlanta, GA 9. Washington, DC metro area 10. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL 11. Riverside-San Bernardino, CA
12. Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL 13. Sacramento, CA
14. Indianapolis, IN 15. Houston, TX 16. Chicago, IL 17. Portland, OR 18. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 19. Phoenix-Scottsdale, AZ 20. Charlotte, NC 21. San Antonio, TX 22. Seattle-Tacoma, WA 23. Jacksonville, FL 24. Philadelphia, PA 25. Orlando-Kissimmee, FL

Additional Sources: Biz2Credit Identifies 2014’s Best Small Business Cities in America; Surprisingly, California Didn’t Make The Top Out-Bound Or In-Bound States Lists … But, You Might Be Surprised By Which Did

UPDATE: Washington Department of Labor & Industries, Electrical Safety Standards, Administration and Installation WAC Rule 296-46B (F500-039-222) effective on July 1, 2014
The Washington State Department of Labor & Industries is considering amendments to the electrical rules based upon new safety code requirements from the 2014 edition of the National Electrical Code (NEC). The 2014 NEC was adopted by the Department on March 1, 2013 to replace the current 2008 NEC standards and will become effective on July 1, 2014. The proposed changes would amend all sections of Chapter 296-46B of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), excluding the Scope of Work requirements in WAC 296-46B-920.

From October 1 through October 31, 2013, the Department accepted rule proposals from external stakeholders and internal department proposals. On March 4, 2014 a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (CR-102) was filed, and the Proposed Rules published for public comment. On April 10, 2014, the Department held a public hearing on the Proposed Rules. The tentative adoption date for the Proposed Rules is May 20, 2014 and the tentative effective date is July 1, 2014.

Additional Sources: Washington Department of Labor & Industries, Electrical Safety Standards, Administration and Installation WAC Rule 296-46B (F500-039-222); Washington State Department of Labor & Industries, Rules Under Development: Electrical safety standards, administration, and installation

UPDATED: On July 8, Hawaii’s Governor signed into law H.B. 1814 and it is effective immediately. Among other things, it authorizes employers to pay wages to an employee using a pay card if certain requirements are met.

Employers’ use of payroll cards to pay employee wages and other benefits is tremendously popular, for among other reasons, the convenience that the cards provide for both employers and employees. If you pay your employees by payroll card in Hawaii, keep an on eye on House Bill 1814. On April 3, 2014, the Hawaii Department of Labor and Industrial Relations issued an Amended Notice Re: Department of Labor and Industrial Relations Guidelines on the Use of Payroll Debit Cards, warning that, effective September 1, 2014, it is suspending its April 13, 2006 Declaratory Ruling, which administratively allows the use of payroll, pay, or debit cards for the payment of wages to employees. (A copy of the April 13, 2006 Declaratory Ruling is appended to the Amended Notice.) Unless the pending legislation permits it, employers will no longer be permitted to use payroll cards starting on September 1, 2014. The Department acknowledged that legislation on point, specifically H.B. 1814 (2014 Reg. Sess.) relating to payment of wages currently is being deliberated. H.B. 1814 was introduced on January 17, 2014, passed by the House on March 4, 2014 and the Senate on April 8, 2014, and transmitted to the Governor on May 5, 2014.

Additional Sources: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Bulletin 2013-10; Comptroller of the Currency, Payroll Cards: An Innovative Product for Reaching the Unbanked and Underbanked (June 2005); Construction Executive, To Pay, Or Not To Pay, By Payroll Debit Card (Oct. 28, 2013)

Before submitting your contractor’s license application in Tennessee, check to make sure you can use the chosen company name…

On March 12, 2014, Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam signed into law House Bill 1464, a bill that amends Tennessee Code § 62-6-111 to require the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance, Board for Licensing Contractors, to “deny any application for licensure as a contractor if the board determines that the name under which the applicant will be trading is identical with the name being used by an existing licensee, or is so nearly similar to the name being used by an existing licensee that it is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public at large” (emphasis added). TN Code § 62-6-111(m). This does not apply to any applicant who has acquired an exclusive right to use the name as a registered trademark pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1051. This law became effective March 12, 2014.

Additional Sources: Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance, Board for Licensing Contractors; Tennessee General Assembly,

On August 27, 2013, California Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. signed into law Senate Bill 745 recasting smoke alarm requirements:

Listing Smoke Alarms

Existing law provides that no person may market, distribute, offer for sale, or sell any fire alarm system or fire alarm device in California unless the system or device has been approved and listed by the State Fire Marshal. As amended, Health & Safety Code § 13114(2)(A) provides that, except as otherwise permitted by Subdivision (2)(B), commencing July 1, 2014, in order to be approved and listed by the State Fire Marshal, a smoke alarm that is only operated by a battery will be required to contain a non-replaceable, non-removable battery that is capable of powering the smoke alarm for at least 10 years. This does not apply to smoke alarms that have been ordered by, or are in the inventory of, an owner, managing agent, contractor, wholesaler, or retailer on or before July 1, 2014, until July 1, 2015.

The new law further requires that, commencing January 1, 2015, in order to be approved and listed by the State Fire Marshal, a smoke alarm must display the date of manufacture on the device, provide a place on the device where the date of installation can be written, and incorporate a hush feature. The new law gives the State Fire Marshal authority to create exceptions through its regulatory process, including, but not limited to, fire alarm systems with smoke detectors, fire alarm devices that connect to a panel, or other devices that use a low-power radio frequency wireless communication signal. The State Fire Marshal is required to approve the manufacturer’s instructions for each smoke alarm and ensure that the instructions are consistent with current building standard requirements for the location and placement of smoke alarms.

Smoke Alarms Installed in Dwelling Units Intended for Human Occupancy

Owners of dwelling units intended for human occupancy should consider reviewing the new smoke alarm law to determine whether they are subject to new requirements. “Dwelling units intended for human occupancy” is defined to include “a one- or two-unit dwelling, lodging house, apartment complex, hotel, motel, condominium, stock cooperative, time-share project, or dwelling unit of a multiple-unit dwelling complex or factory-built housing as defined in [Health & Safety Code §] 19971.” Health & Safety Code § 13113.7(b). It does not include “manufactured homes,” as defined in Health & Safety Code § 18007, “mobile homes,” as defined in Health & Safety Code § 18008, or “commercial coaches,” as defined in Health & Safety Code § 18001.8. A “high rise structure,” as defined in Health & Safety Code § 13210(b), and regulated by Chapter 3 (commencing with Health & Safety Code § 13210), and which is used for purposes other than as dwelling units intended for human occupancy, is exempt from the Health & Safety Code § 13113.7 requirements, discussed below.

Building Permits On or After January 1, 2014

Section 13113.7 prohibits, for all “dwelling units intended for human occupancy,” for which a building permit is issued on or after January 1, 2014, for alterations, repairs, or additions exceeding $1,000, the permit issuer signing off on the completion of work if the permittee has not demonstrated that all smoke alarms required for the dwelling unit are devices approved and listed by the Office of the State Fire Marshal pursuant to Health & Safety Code § 13114. Certain exceptions set forth in Section 13113.7 may apply.

Testing Smoke Alarms

Section 13113.7(d) provides that the “owner shall be responsible for testing and maintaining alarms in hotels, motels, lodging houses, apartment complexes, and other multiple dwelling complexes in which units are neither rented nor leased.” It further provides that the owner of a hotel, motel, lodging houses, apartment complex, or other multiple-dwelling complexes in which units are rented or leased, and commencing January 1, 2014, the owner of a single-family dwelling that is rented or leased, shall be responsible for testing and maintaining alarms required by this section as follows:

“(A) An owner or the owner’s agent may enter any dwelling unit, efficiency dwelling unit, guest room, and suite owned by the owner for the purpose of installing, repairing, testing, and maintaining single station smoke detectors required by this section. Except in cases of emergency, the owner or owner’s agent shall give the tenants of each such unit, room, or suite reasonable notice in writing of the intention to enter and shall enter only during normal business hours. Twenty-four hours shall be presumed to be reasonable notice in absence of evidence to the contrary.
(B) At the time that a new tenancy is created, the owner shall ensure that smoke alarms are operable. The tenant shall be responsible for notifying the manager or owner if the tenant becomes aware of an inoperable smoke alarm within his or her unit. The owner or authorized agent shall correct any reported deficiencies in the smoke alarm when he or she has not received notice of the deficiency.”

Additional Smoke Alarms Required

Unless exempt, on or before January 1, 2016, the owner of a “dwelling unit intended for human occupancy” in which one or more units is rented or leased is to install additional smoke alarms, as needed, to ensure that smoke alarms are located in compliance with current building standards. New smoke alarms may be battery operated provided that alarms have been approved by the State Fire Marshal for sale in the State, and existing alarms need not be replaced unless that alarm is inoperable. This requirement does not apply to fire alarm systems with smoke detectors, fire alarms devices that connect to a panel, or other devices that use a low-power radio frequency wireless communication signal.

Additional Source: California State Fire Marshal Information Bulletin 13-006; California Senate Bill 745; Health & Safety Code §§ 13113.7, 13114; Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act of 2010 ; Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) on Carbon Monoxide (CO) Devices

Today, Pillsbury attorney Paul Casas published his advisory titled Lingering Questions About the San Francisco Gross Receipts Tax. The Advisory discusses the San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ November 26, 2013 approved amendments to the San Francisco Business and Tax Regulations Code (Code), providing for penalty relief for delinquent Gross Receipts Tax (GRT) installment payments, mandatory combined reporting for Payroll Expense Tax purposes, and the imposition of a new penalty for failure to file returns on a combined basis or failure to provide worldwide payroll or gross receipts information. The first installment payment for the new GRT is due April 30, 2014. While the City has provided some relief from installment underpayment penalties, many questions about the new tax remain as this deadline approaches.

The GRT rate for the construction industry starts at 0.300% and gradually increases to 0.450% for gross receipts over $25,000,000. The GRT provides a special provision allowing taxpayers in the construction industry to reduce taxable gross receipts for amounts paid to subcontractors that possess valid San Francisco business registration certificates during the tax year. In order to claim this reduction, a person must maintain an itemized schedule of payments to subcontractors and sufficient information to verify the subcontractor possessed a valid San Francisco business registration certificate. Reductions for any other costs, including without limitation, costs for materials, fees, equipment, or other services are not permitted.

If you have any questions about the content of this blog, please contact the Pillsbury attorney with whom you regularly work.

Additional Sources: San Francisco Ordinance No. 271-13