Individual Business Licenses...

[Ian Wilson]

I've misplaced the thread from a few years back that discussed the exemptions for surveyors (or other design consultants) from having to have separate business licenses for each city in which they perform services.

Does anyone remember the statutory exemptions?

Thanks!

[Ian Wilson]

Thanks!

Jessica, at the central office, sent me the info.

I was searching for it. I could have sworn that it was only a year or so ago.

2003?!?! You have to be kidding me!!!

[land butcher]

Obviously local cities are not complying.
On construction projects the city requires the contractor to supply the names of all the subcontractors and requires them to obtain a local business license. Many contractors have dozens of licenses.
In some citys the hit wasn't too bad, less than $50. Anaheim wanted ~$2500 from me on a job I bid at $2200. Don't know how but the contractor took care of it.

It's amazing how govt agencies act outside the law and never get admonished for it like private citizens do.

[Jim Frame]

Jessica, at the central office, sent me the info.

How about posting it? I thought I'd saved that information somewhere, but now I can't find it...

.

[Jim Frame]

Thanks, Woodcutter. That points me to the applicable B&P code section (§16000 et seq), which is what I wanted.

.

[land butcher]

I think what the article is referring to is agencies that collect a flat fee plus a percent of your revenue.
Revenue can be limited to that jurisdiction, but collecting a flat fee of whatever they want to charge apparently is legal.

BTW, I just found out that researching of improvement plans at the City of Beverly Hills requires a $125 deposit - that gets you 1 hr of engineer time.

[Lee Hixson]

Wow! Charging for research. What a shame.

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

The City I worked for required contractors on Capitol Improvement Projects to get a business license but later relaxed the requirement to requiring a copy of the business license in their home office jurisdiction. This was in the 1990s.

[Ian Wilson]

The article is referring to agencies that require business licenses, flat fee, rate, percentage or otherwise.

Agencies can, and do, insist upon things that they are not permitt to do under State Statutes.

Local jurisdictions retain the authority to enact ordinances that are not specifically enumerated to the State. The State is clear on this concept. It is not left up to the individual cities to make their own decisions. Let's stop giving them free reign over things that are not theirs to oversee.

[MFORD]

Land Butcher

Maybe those who require improvement plans from the City Beverly hills should remind the local department of Government Code Section 6250 "Public Records Act" to wit;

"6253 (b) Except with respect to public records exempt from disclosure
by express provisions of law, each state or local agency, upon a
request for a copy of records that reasonably describes an
identifiable record or records, shall make the records promptly
available to any person upon payment of fees covering direct costs of
duplication, or a statutory fee if applicable. Upon request, an
exact copy shall be provided unless impracticable to do so."


From your description the City of Beverly Hills is charging for labor cost which isn't covered under section 6253(b), unless a statutory fee is applicable. In order for the City to charge for labor cost of a public employee there would have to be a law that specifically allows it in the context of providing copies. At least that's my reading of the Public Records Act.

[land butcher]

MFORD

Is that federal code 6250 or State I'll pass this info to the party involved.

The freedom of information act only applies to the Federal Govt not local agencies.

[land butcher]

The article is referring to agencies that require business licenses, flat fee, rate, percentage or otherwise.

Agencies can, and do, insist upon things that they are not permitt to do under State Statutes.

Local jurisdictions retain the authority to enact ordinances that are not specifically enumerated to the State. The State is clear on this concept. It is not left up to the individual cities to make their own decisions. Let's stop giving them free reign over things that are not theirs to oversee.

I agree. There is too much of "it's not that big a deal just do it" then it becomes president.
One of the problems is that this stuff always comes up when a project is in git r done mode and the const loan cost is far higher than complying and the local agencies know that.

[Ian Wilson]

MFORD

Is that federal code 6250 or State I'll pass this info to the party involved.

The freedom of information act only applies to the Federal Govt not local agencies.

Oh my!

First, FIOA is a Federal Statute, so, in that respect, I suppose you are correct about application to only the Federal Government.

However, in California, by huge majority in 2004, we have similar statutes that have already stood the test of challenges in court.

BTW §6250 refers to the California Government Code.

http://www.thefirstamendment.org/publicrecordsact.pdf

[MFORD]

Land Butcher,
This is the link to the California Public Records Act.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displ ... =6250-6270

My reading of this legislation, which I believe was passed in 1984, doesn't allow labor charges for copies of public documents. I would also offer a lot of city/county/state agencies are blissfully ignorant of the requirements to provide copies of public documents for the cost of reproduction.

Hope this helps.

[land butcher]

Thanks, I'll pass that along.