Maintenance

AB 1978: Janitorial Service Providers Must be Registered

Published on: January 9, 2017 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

janitorial-e1483995561223 AB 1978 creates the Property Services Workers Protection Act. Adding Part 4.2 (commencing with Section 1420) to Division 2 of the Labor Code, it requires every janitorial business within the State of California to register yearly with the Commissioner of the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) and pay a yearly fee of $500.00. “No employer may conduct any janitorial business without a valid registration.”

It requires employees and employers of janitorial businesses to participate in a biennial in-person sexual violence and harassment prevention training course. The course is to be developed by the DLSE by January 1, 2019.

Any janitorial business which does not have a current and valid registration is subject to a fine of $2,500.00. Additional fines may be imposed including a fine of $100.00 for each calendar day that the business is unregistered with a maximum fine of $10,000.00.

Businesses (including Homeowner Associations) which contract with unregistered and unlicensed janitorial businesses are subject to fines of $2,000.00 to $25,000.00.

How will you know if the janitorial business is registered?

The DLSE is required to maintain an online Janitorial Contractor Registry which is to be a public database of property service employers on the website of the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) including the name, address, registration number, and effective dates of registration of all janitorial businesses.

AB 1978 was signed into law on September 15, 2016, and becomes effective on July 1, 2018.

Be proactive: Verify online through the Janitorial Contractor Registry that your janitorial workers are employed by a licensed janitorial business. If you don’t, your Association may be subject to fines of $2,000.00 to $25,000.00.

Blog post authored by TLG attorney, Bruce R. Kermot.

The California Air Resources Board Has Established Regulations Regarding Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles that Directly Impact Homeowners Associations

Published on: January 9, 2017 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

street-sweeper The California Air Resources Board (“ARB”) passed a regulation (“Regulation”) that requires diesel trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce emissions. The Regulation has a direct impact on HOAs and requires them to take steps to verify that certain vehicles they hire are properly certified with the State. The Regulation requires lighter and older heavier trucks to be replaced starting January 1, 2015. By January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 2010 model year engines or equivalent.

The Regulation requires that any party (including HOAs, board members, and managing agents) that hires or directs the operation of any vehicle subject to the Regulation, must verify that each hired company is either in compliance with the regulation or has reported compliance to the ARB. The Regulation does not apply where the party does not hire or direct the operation of any vehicle subject to the Regulation. The types of vehicles that an HOA or its managing agent may encounter include but are not limited to the following: street sweepers, dump trucks, pumper trucks, crane trucks, charter buses, lift trucks, concrete pump trucks, and tow trucks.

Associations Could Be Held Liable for the Employees of Independent Contractors

Published on: June 22, 2016 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

Labor-Unions-Preventive-Practices-1024x683 On August 27, 2015, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) published its decision in the Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. case (“BFI Case”). In that case, Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. (“BFI”) retained the services of Leadpoint Business Services (“LBS”) to provide staff to one of BFI’s recycling facilities. The contract between BFI and LBS recognized, and the parties understood, that the personnel staffed by LBS were the employees of LBS. Nevertheless, given the fact that the contract granted BFI with some control over the employees of LBS, the NLRB concluded that BFI was a joint-employer of LBS thereby obligating BFI to comply with federal labor laws.

In adopting a new legal standard for determining joint-employer status, the NLRB emphasized that such a determination should not be based solely on actual control over the employees of another, but the “existence, extent, and object of the putative joint employer’s control.” (Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. (2015) 2015 NLRB No. 672, *12 (Emphasis added).) Otherwise, employers would be able to insulate themselves from their responsibility to comply with federal labor laws. (Id. at p. *21) Accordingly, as long as a company retains (e.g., through the execution of a contract) the authority to control the employees of another, said company shall be given joint employer status. (Id. at p. *2.) This is true even if control is exercised indirectly (e.g., through an intermediary). (Id.)

Many associations retain a community management firm for the purpose of executing the duties of the association. These community management firms in turn employ community managers and support staff to manage these associations. While historically recognized as the employee of the community management firm (and an independent contractor of the association), the BFI Case raises some questions with respect to the nature of the relationship between the employees of a community management firm and the association. Accordingly, associations must be cognizant that a Court may find that it is a joint employer of the community manager (and support staff), notwithstanding the fact that it exercises no direct and immediate control over said manager.

Similarly, associations and management companies must take care when hiring maintenance and service providers for the community. When managers, committee members, or board members are conducting job walks with a contractor’s employee, reviewing specifications, or receiving invoices, the management company and the association may become joint employers. In Heiman v. Worker’s Compensation Appeals Board, Cal: Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist., 3rd Div. 2007 (“Heiman”), a community association manager hired an unlicensed and uninsured contractor on behalf of the association to install rain gutters on the condominium buildings. An employee of the contractor was seriously injured on the first day of the project and sued the contractor, management company, and association for workers’ compensation. The Court held that the contractor, the association, and the management company were all joint employers because the contractor hired the injured employee, and the management company, as agent of the association, hired the contractor. The BFI Case seems to affirm this decision.

In order to insulate the association from a possible finding of joint-employer status, the association should ensure that its contract with independent contractors, requires all proper licenses and insurance, adequately sets forth the desired results, and sets forth the level of care and skill to be used in accomplishing the desired results. (See Id. at p. 12 (“mere ‘service under an agreement to accomplish results or to use care and skill in accomplishing results’ is not evidence of an employment, or joint-employment relationship”).) The agreement should also include a provision that requires the contractor to indemnify and hold the association harmless in the event a labor dispute arises.

Blog post authored by TLG attorney, Matthew T. Plaxton.

Governor Lifts 25% Mandatory Water Reduction & Directs Local Water Suppliers to Regulate Water Conservation

Published on: May 19, 2016 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

hoa-water-usage In April of last year Governor Brown ordered mandatory water use reductions for the first time in California’s history in order to address the prolonged California drought crisis. That order directed the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to impose a twenty-five percent (25%) reduction on the state’s 400+ local water supply agencies. Complying with these mandated reductions caused communities throughout the state to immediately and drastically address their water usage and conservation practices, and to incur significant expense in doing so. This order was issued amidst a string of legislative and regulatory changes aimed at addressing the historic drought. For example, legislation was enacted to prohibit homeowners associations (HOAs) from fining homeowners for failing to water their lawns during the drought, and the SWRCB adopted emergency regulations that subject HOAs to fines of $500 per day for failing to comply with the SWRCB’s restrictions on potable water use.

In an apparent policy reversal, yesterday the Governor lifted the 25% mandated statewide water reduction. The Governor’s new executive order directs the SWRCB and the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to work with water suppliers to develop rules and water use targets that are tailored to the unique conditions of their respective regions.

Under the new rules, which take effect on June 1, communities would set water reduction guidelines based on their own projection of water supplies with the assumption that the next three (3) years in California will be uncommonly dry. The state would then review the projections and impose restrictions on communities it determines are being unrealistic. These rules and restrictions are consistent with legislation proposed earlier this year (SB 814) that, if adopted in its current form, would require water suppliers to establish their own methods to identify and restrict excessive water use.

These rules may lead to a significant reduction, or even an elimination, of water reduction mandates that have compelled HOAs to drastically alter their water usage and watering practices at substantial costs to the HOAs and their membership. The $500 daily fine to which HOAs are subject remains in effect; however, allowing for water reduction mandates to now be established at local levels will hopefully result in more sensible water reduction targets.

Properly Vetting a HOA’s Vendors & their Contracts

Published on: March 15, 2016 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

hoa vendors One of the primary purposes of any homeowners association (HOA) is to manage, maintain and repair the common areas throughout the HOA’s development. This naturally requires the HOA to contract with third-party vendors to furnish goods or services to the HOA (e.g., landscaping, construction, remediation, painting, plumbing, etc.). We are consistently surprised at how some Board members and management professionals fail to recognize how the HOA’s use of improperly vetted vendors can result in potentially significant legal and financial implications for the HOA, among other problems. Therefore, the need to properly vet vendors—and their contracts—is critical before the Board executes any vendor’s contract on behalf of the HOA.

We previously drafted a library article entitled “HOA Concerns in Contracting with Vendors” that provides some guidance as to how a HOA’s Board and Managing Agent can protect the interests of the HOA and its members. This blog post touches on some of the information contained in that article, and sets forth some recommended procedures which should be utilized before any vendor begins work at the HOA’s development.

Click below to continue reading…

SB 655 Signed! Moldy Buildings Now Deemed a ‘Substandard Condition’

Published on: December 2, 2015 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

hoa-mold-growth *New Legislation

Existing law requires a landlord to repair certain “dilapidations” that render a unit untenantable. SB 655 (Mitchell) was proposed earlier this year in order to specify a landlord’s responsibilities in connection with repairs to a building that are necessitated by the presence of mold. SB 655 was approved on October 9, 2015 and its changes to the law will become effective January 1, 2016.

As a result of SB 655’s passage, new Section 1941.7 will be added to the Civil Code in order to alleviate a landlord’s responsibility to repair mold damage until the landlord receives notice or if the tenant is in violation of his/her obligations specified under Civil Code Section 1941.2. What’s more significant is how SB 655 will also amend Sections 17920 and 17920.3 of the Health & Safety Code to include “visible mold growth” as a substandard building condition that could subject a landlord to criminal penalties (misdemeanor), with a limited exception provided for mold that “is minor and found on surfaces that can accumulate moisture as part of their properly functioning and intended use.”

SB 655 speaks to landlords (a “lessor of a building”), and not necessarily homeowners associations (“HOAs”). However, courts have applied landlord/tenant law to HOAs in certain circumstances, such as those involving issues of life safety. (See Frances T. v. Village Green Owners Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 490.) Thus, there is a concern circulating throughout the HOA industry that a condominium HOA (i.e., its Board or management) could now face criminal liability for its unreasonable failure to address reports of mold and to take appropriate corrective measures.

We do not believe that SB 655 will ultimately subject HOA Boards or management professionals to criminal liability. However, SB 655 does underscore how important it is for a HOA to immediately address reports of mold and to take appropriate action. A HOA Board should consider working with the HOA’s attorney to adopt a formal water intrusion/mold policy. That policy would help educate members on their obligations to immediately notify the HOA and its management of the presence of mold within their Units, and would also specify the HOA’s policy in responding to reports of mold.

AB 786 Signed! Clarifying when HOAs May Fine Homeowners for Brown Lawns

Published on: October 28, 2015 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

hoa-recycled-water *New Legislation

We have blogged about legislation enacted in 2014 that made several changes to Civil Code Section 4735 in response to California’s continuing, record-breaking drought. One of those changes served to prohibit HOAs from fining homeowners for failing to adequately water vegetation or lawns during government-declared drought periods. Earlier this year, AB 349 was signed into law to make further changes to Section 4735. One of those changes served to restore a HOA’s authority to fine homeowners for failing to water, provided that the HOA “uses recycled water…for landscaping irrigation.” (Former Civ. Code § 4735(c).)

Questions then arose as to the circumstances which would allow for a HOA to qualify for this exception and thus be permitted to fine homeowners for failing to water. For example, would a HOA have to use recycled water for all of its landscaping irrigation, or just a portion of its landscaping irrigation? To remedy this ambiguity, AB 786 was proposed this year as an urgency statute based upon the following findings by the California Legislature:

“…some homeowners associations have interpreted existing law to allow them to fine homeowners who voluntarily cease using potable water on their landscaping if the homeowners association itself is using a de minimis amount of recycled water on common areas. This is directly contrary to the state’s need to conserve the precious and dwindling water supplied for urban, agricultural, and environmental needs.”

AB 786 therefore sought to make additional amendments to Section 4735 to clarify that a HOA’s authority to fine homeowners for failing to water during drought periods extends only to situations where the homeowner’s property subject to the fine has previously received, and continues to receive, recycled water for landscaping irrigation. Thus, the Legislature illustrated its original intent to shield only those homeowners who voluntarily cease using potable water for their landscaping irrigation from being fined by their HOAs; homeowners with access to recycled water would still be subject to fines if they failed to use that recycled water for their landscaping irrigation.

AB 786 was signed into law on October 13, 2015 and its changes took immediate effect. Subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 4735 now state in pertinent parts that:

“(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, except as provided in subdivision (d), an association shall not impose a fine or assessment against an owner of a separate interest for reducing or eliminating the watering of vegetation or lawns during [government-declared drought periods]…”

“(d) Subdivision (c) shall not apply to an owner of a separate interest that, prior to the imposition of a fine or assessment as described in subdivision (c), receives recycled water…and fails to use that recycled water for landscaping irrigation.” (Emphasis added.)

AB 786 fortunately resolves yet another ambiguity that was created by rushed legislation. HOA Boards and management professionals whom are opposed to having a sea of “brown lawns” within their communities should consult with their HOA’s legal counsel for guidance.

Effectively Immediately! HOAs may not Prohibit Artificial Turf (Grass)

Published on: September 8, 2015 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

hoa-artificial-grass-turf New Legislation*

In recent years the California legislature has proposed bills that would require homeowners associations (HOAs) to permit the installation of artificial turf (grass) in their communities. Those bills never made it into law, and were vetoed by the California Governor due to the Governor’s belief that “[t]he decision about choosing synthetic turf instead of natural vegetation should be left to individual homeowners associations, not mandated by state law.”

AB 349, proposed earlier this year, marked the latest attempt by the California Legislature to restrict the authority of HOAs to prohibit artificial turf. AB 349 was proposed as an urgency statute based upon the following rationale of the California Legislature:

“While in the middle of a water shortage crisis, homeowner associations are not allowing homeowners to make voluntary sacrifices and are still forcing them to maintain grass lawns, by installing artificial grass, and are fining them if they are out of compliance. [AB 349] ensures that all homeowners have the right to better conserve water by voluntarily replacing grass with artificial grass. Property owners who pursue water conservation by installing artificial grass should be encouraged, not sued or fined. Thus, this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.”

The prolonged California drought has apparently lead to a reversal in the Governor’s position on this issue and AB 349 was signed into law on September 4, 2015. As a result, Civil Code Section 4735 has been amended to render void and unenforceable any provision of a HOA’s governing documents (i.e., a HOA’s architectural standards) that “prohibits, or includes conditions that have the effect of prohibiting, the use of artificial turf or any other synthetic surface that resembles grass.” (Civ. Code § 4735(a)(2).)

This language was modeled after similar protections already existing in Section 4735 for homeowners seeking to use “low-water using plants.” An additional amendment to Section 4735 as a result of AB 349’s passage includes the incorporation of new subpart (d) that protects homeowners from having to “reverse or remove” water-efficient landscaping measures that were installed in response to a government-declared drought period once the drought period concludes.

AB 349’s changes to the law take effect immediately as an urgency statute. HOA boards, architectural committees and management professionals must take note of the changes to Civil Code Section 4735. While AB 349 does not address what types of restrictions (as opposed to flat prohibitions) a HOA may place on the installation of artificial turf, HOAs should endeavor to amend their architectural standards in order to provide some guidance to homeowners on this issue and to deter the use of low quality turf materials.

Increased Maintenance Requirements for HOA Pools in California

Published on: August 31, 2015 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

hoa-pool-water-testing The requirements for operating and maintaining “public pools” have been subject to various regulatory changes in recent years. Those changes have impacted pools within private homeowners associations (HOAs), as the California Legislature and Department of Health have defined the term “public pools” to include pools located within private HOAs and residential developments. (Health & Safety Code §§ 116049.1(a), 116064.2(a)(4)(B); 22 CCR § 65503(a)(9).) The more notable changes include those which mandate (1) new parameters for water characteristics, (2) strict monitoring of pool facilities and requirements for written records, (3) enforcement of specific safety and first aid equipment, (4) requirements that newly constructed public pool enclosures have at least one keyless exit and self closing latches, and (5) the imposition of health restrictions for employees or pool users. Some of these changes are discussed below.

Daily Testing
The most significant change is that which requires HOAs with twenty-five (25) or more separate interests to test pool and spa water chemical composition and temperature on a daily basis, and to keep a daily log of the testing. (22 CCR § 65523(a).) Daily testing may be performed “using a properly calibrated automatic chemical monitoring and control system” if allowed by local enforcing authorities. (22 CCR § 65523(a).) For HOAs with fewer than 25 separate interests, testing must be performed and documented “at least two times per week and at intervals no greater than four days apart.” (Health & Safety Code § 116048(a).)

Safety Equipment
Other notable changes deal with the installation/maintenance of safety and first aid equipment. For example, that equipment must include a 12’ minimum length rescue pole and a 17” minimum (exterior diameter) life ring with an attached throw rope having a minimum of 3/16” diameter. (22 CCR § 65540(a).)

Health Restrictions
Previous regulations prohibited persons with diarrhea from using the pool. Now, pool access must be denied to any person, including pool monitors, that have symptoms “such as a cough, cold sore, or nasal or ear discharge or when wearing bandages.” (22 CCR § 65541(b).)

Pool Enclosures; Gates & Doors
Finally, there are specific requirements in Section 3119B of the California Building Code for at least one gate/door into the pool enclosure to allow for egress, without a key, for emergency purposes. If all gates/doors allow for keyless exit, no special signage is necessary, otherwise the keyless exit(s) must have signage stating “EMERGENCY EXIT” in at least 4” high lettering.

The requirements and technicalities governing pool use and maintenance are numerous and complex. Now, more than ever, HOAs should ensure that their pool maintenance vendors are aware of these requirements and understand the need for strict compliance.

Expanded Emergency Regulation: Prohibited Irrigation Activities

Published on: March 18, 2015 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

*New Regulations

The prolonged period of drought in California has resulted in numerous regulatory and legislative changes aimed at addressing the water shortage (i.e., legislation regarding low-water using plants and watering during droughts). On March 17, 2015, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted an expanded emergency regulation to safeguard California’s remaining water supplies.

Under the expanded emergency regulation, additional prohibitions on potable water use have gone into immediate effect. All Californians are now prohibited from using potable water to:

Wash down sidewalks and driveways;
Water outdoor landscapes in a manner that causes excessive runoff
Washing a motor vehicle with a hose, unless the hose is fitted with a shut-off nozzle:
Operating a fountain or decorative water feature, unless the water is part of a recirculating system; and
Irrigating turf or ornamental landscapes during and 48 hours following measurable precipitation (*New)

The newly adopted prohibition on irrigating turf/landscapes during and 48 hours following precipitation (rain) may impact the common area maintenance/irrigation practices of HOAs. Failure to comply with that provision could subject a HOA to a fine of $500 per day.

To read more about the emergency regulation, click here.