Public works: prevailing wages.
Summary
Existing law defines "public works," for purposes of regulating public works contracts, as, among other things, construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair work done under contract and paid for, in whole or in part, out of public funds. Existing law further requires that, except as specified, not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages be paid to workers employed on public works and imposes misdemeanor penalties for a violation of this requirement. Existing law provides that for the purposes of provisions of law relating to the payment of prevailing wages, "public works" includes specified types of construction, alteration, demolition, installation, and repair work. This bill would revise the definition of "public works" for these purposes to include the construction, alteration, demolition, installation, and repair work done under private contract when specified conditions are met, including the requirement that the work is performed in connection with the construction or maintenance of renewable energy generation capacity, located on property wholly or partially owned by a school district or community college district, or on public property, specifically to serve a school district or community college district. Because the violation of prevailing wage requirements by local public entities when engaged in these public works projects would result in the imposition of misdemeanor penalties, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Bill status
vetoed
4 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2009
Committee Review
Aug 2009
Assembly Passage
Aug 2010
Senate Passage
Aug 2010
Vetoed
Sep 2010
Introduced Feb 25, 2009
Vetoed Sep 23, 2010
Floor votes · Senate Aug 18, 2010 · Assembly Jun 2, 2009
How they voted
22–10
Passed · 5 other
Total votes 37
Aug 18, 2010
D
Democratic25
84% Yea
R
Republican12
83% Nay
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
29
Key actions
9
Committee
9
Amendments
5
Sep 23, 2010
Vetoed
Vetoed by Governor.
lower
Aug 25, 2010
Lower · Passed
Senate amendments concurred in. To enrollment. (Ayes 50. Noes 25. Page 6680.)
lower
Aug 24, 2010
Lower · Passed
Passed on file.
lower
Aug 18, 2010
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (22-10-5)
senate
Aug 18, 2010
Introduced
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 20 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
lower
Aug 18, 2009
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 8. Noes 3.) (August 17).
upper
Jul 23, 2009
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Jul 9, 2009
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Re-referred. (Ayes 4. Noes 1.) (July 8).
upper
Jun 25, 2009
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on L. & I.R.
upper
Jun 18, 2009
Committee
Referred to Com. on L. & I.R.
upper
Jun 2, 2009
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (41-28-1)
assembly
May 29, 2009
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 5.) (May 28).
lower
May 6, 2009
Committee
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
lower
Apr 23, 2009
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Re-referred. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (April 22).
lower
Apr 15, 2009
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on L. & E.
lower
Apr 14, 2009
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on L. & E. Read second time and amended.
lower
Apr 13, 2009
Committee
Referred to Com. on L. & E.
lower
Feb 26, 2009
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 28.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
JS
Jose Solorio
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 677
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 677. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline