Cal. Gov. Code § 70371.9
State Court Facilities Construction Fund
Redline — January 1, 2011 → current.View current text →
Current — January 1, 2019
As of January 1, 2011
(a) The Judicial Council shall conduct a pilot program until July 1, 2013, to assess the benefits and impacts of both of the following:
(1) Requiring all subcontractors with bids in excess of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) to pay for employee health care expenditures for their construction field employees working in California.
(2) Giving two quality points out of 100 quality points to a proposing construction manager at risk that pays for employee health care expenditures for its construction field employees working in California.
(b) The Judicial Council shall, after consulting with applicable stakeholders, select three courthouse construction projects from those funded by the Immediate and Critical Needs Account established by Section 70371.5 to implement the pilot program, including one project with estimated construction costs in excess of two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000), one project with estimated construction costs between one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) and two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000), and one project with estimated construction costs between seventy-five million dollars ($75,000,000) and one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000).
(c) The Administrative Office of Courts shall provide two quality points out of a total 100 quality points to construction managers at risk that submit proposals and certify that they are qualified.
(1) A proposer qualifies for the two quality points pursuant to this subdivision if, for the six-month period immediately preceding submission of the proposal, the proposer’s aggregate California employee health care expenditures were equal to at least 6.5 percent of that proposer’s aggregate California social security wages.
(2) A proposer shall receive two quality points by certifying that it qualifies for the two points on a form provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts.
(3) Any proposer that certifies that it qualifies for the two quality points shall provide to the Administrative Office of the Courts, upon request, sufficient records to show that the proposer is qualified. The failure to supply the records within a reasonable time, as specified by the Administrative Office of the Courts, may result in the proposer’s disqualification.
(d) (1) A subcontractor shall not be awarded a subcontract in excess of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) on a project under the pilot program unless, for the six-month period immediately preceding the effective date of the subcontract, the subcontractor’s aggregate California employee health care expenditures were equal to at least 6.5 percent of that subcontractor’s aggregate California social security wages. The Administrative Office of the Courts may waive this requirement if no economically feasible bid is received.
(2) Each subcontractor awarded a subcontract in excess of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) on a project under the pilot program shall submit to the construction manager at risk, prior to execution of its subcontract, a statement on a form provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts certifying that it has complied with the requirement in paragraph (1).
(3) A subcontractor awarded a subcontract in excess of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) on a project under the pilot program shall provide to the construction manager at risk, upon request, sufficient records to show that the proposer has complied with paragraph (1).
(e) In order to evaluate the benefits of this pilot program, including the potential improvement of health care coverage for construction field employees, potential savings to the State of California from not having to pay for health care for uninsured workers and their dependents, and other impacts, including potential increased project costs, the Administrative Office of the Courts shall collect and analyze data to assess the impact of subdivisions (b) and (c) and issue a report summarizing the data and analysis on or before July 1, 2015. The Administrative Office of the Courts may contract with third-party consultants in collecting and analyzing the data and preparing the report.
(f) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
(1) “Aggregate California employee health care expenditures” means all amounts paid by a proposer or subcontractor to its construction field employees in California or to a third party on behalf of a proposer’s or subcontractor’s construction field employees in California, for the purpose of providing health care services to the construction field employees or reimbursing the cost of those services for the construction field employees, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(A) Contributions on behalf of employees to a health savings account, as defined under Section 223 of the Internal Revenue Code, or to any other account having substantially the same purpose or effect without regard to whether the contributions qualify for a tax deduction or are excludable from employee income.
(B) Reimbursement to employees for expenses incurred in the purchase of health care services.
(C) Payments to a third party for the purpose of providing health care services for employees.
(D) Payments pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement for the purpose of providing health care services for employees.
(E) Costs incurred in the direct delivery of health care services to employees.
(2) “Aggregate California social security wages” means the aggregate amount of wages paid to all of a proposer’s or subcontractor’s construction field employees in California, not including any wages that are above the federal social security contribution and benefit base, sometimes referred to as the social security wage base, for the year in which they are paid.
(3) “Construction field employees” means a proposer’s or subcontractor’s workers who perform construction labor at construction jobsites.
(4) “Health care services” means medical care, services, or goods that qualify as tax deductible medical care expenses under Section 213 of the Internal Revenue Code, or medical care, services, or goods having substantially the same purpose or effect as those deductible expenses.
(g) This section shall become inoperative on July 1, 2015, and, as of January 1, 2016, is repealed, unless a later enacted statute that is enacted before January 1, 2016, deletes or extend the dates on which it becomes operative and is repealed.
(a) (1) The Judicial Council shall conduct, or contract with an independent contractor to conduct, a reassessment of those projects identified in its Update to Trial Court Capital-Outlay Plan and Prioritization Methodology adopted on October 24, 2008, or the most recent version of that update, if any. Other projects may be included for reassessment at the discretion of the Judicial Council. The reassessment shall be submitted to the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review and the Assembly Committee on Budget by December 31, 2019.
(2) The Judicial Council may exclude from the reassessment those projects that were canceled prior to June 30, 2018, and those that were approved in the Budget Act of 2018.
(b) A project subject to this section shall be reassessed and ranked, at minimum, on each of the following:
(1) The criteria identified in the Update to Trial Court Capital-Outlay Plan and Prioritization Methodology adopted on October 24, 2008, or the most recent version of that update, if any.
(2) The level of seismic risk, environmental hazards, and other health and safety hazards.
(3) The impact on court users, including, but not limited to, the level of public access to court services, such as accessibility to the courthouse.
(4) The cost avoidance or savings that would be achieved due to the project through operational or organizational efficiencies created for the court or the state.
(5) Ways to minimize increased ongoing costs, including, but not limited to, trial court security and operating and maintenance costs.
(6) A comparison of the cost to repair or renovate the existing facility versus the cost of replacement.
(7) The projected cost of each proposed project, per court user.
(8) The total costs spent on the project as of the date of the assessment.
Official source: California Legislative Information. Reproduced from public-domain California statutes; confirm against the official source for the current text. Not legal advice.