Minnesota Legislative Bulletin 2-24-10
There is good news this session. The Legislature is so focused on bonding bills that there is very little happening that affects your business.
Below is information about some of the specific issues other industry groups are monitoring or proposing.
Paula Siewert
Mandatory Expanded Sick Leave for Full and Part time Employees
House File 2959. is the bill for an act relating to public health; establishing minimum standards of sick leave for certain workers; providing civil penalties; requiring rulemaking; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 181. Some of the provisions include:
(b) An employer that employs fewer than ten employees must provide a covered employee who works 30 or more hours a week 40 hours of paid sick leave in a calendar year
(c) An employer that employs ten or more employees must provide a covered employee who works 30 or more hours a week 72 hours of paid sick leave in a calendar year.
(d) An employer shall annually provide, to each covered employee employed by the employer for less than 30 hours a week, a number of days or hours of paid sick leave. The number of days or hours shall be determined under a formula specified by the commissioner that is designed to provide an approximate pro rata share of the hours of paid sick leave described in paragraphs (b) and (c), based on the hours worked by the covered employee.
The Health Care and Human Services Committee has not taken any action.
Builders Assn. Minnesota Opposed Threat To Building Code Uniformity
House File 2945 introduced at the urging of the City of Saint Paul is looking to undo 20 years of work by the Builders Association of Minnesota (BAM) with respect to the building code. Just a few years ago, we passed a law that says the state building code is now statewide. The law also includes language that prohibits a municipality from requiring anything more stringent than the state building code.
Our argument is that the building code must be uniform throughout the state. The MN Supreme Court agreed with us and underscored the uniformity of the building code in the May 15, 2008 MN Supreme Court decision, The City of Morris v. Sax Investments. The court ruled that not only does the state building code regulate the construction of new buildings, but it also governs the reconstruction, alteration and repair of buildings and structures.
In addition, the state building code governs the post-construction use of buildings by allowing the occupancy of an existing building " to continue without complying with the current code requirements (nonconforming use) unless a code provision is specifically applicable to existing buildings." Finally, and most importantly, the court plainly said that, "any difference from the building code (imposed by the local jurisdiction) is prohibited. Thus, even a provision that is merely additional and complimentary to a provision in the State Building Code is prohibited."
House File 2945 seeks to undo the language that the MN Supreme Court so plainly stated. BAM works hard to find consensus on the building code when it is being discussed. If we allow cities to alter the code at will, the state should rethink the policy of having a statewide building code. The bill has its first hearing next week Monday. I will be testifying in opposition to the bill. We will keep you posted on its progress.