 |
 |
Legislative Updates
EPA Clarification of New Lead Paint Regulations
Apartment firms are reminded that new lead-based paint (LBP) Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) regulations go into effect on April 22. The regulations, which cover subsidized and market-rate properties built before 1978, require apartment firms that engage in activities covered by the rule to become certified, train their employees on lead-safe work practices and/or employ certified contractors to perform renovation or repair work. Properties that have been found to be lead-free by a state-certified inspector are exempt. Several members have contacted NAA/NMHC to report that regional EPA officials have stated that the federally approved testing protocol that has been in place under the Lead-based Paint Hazard Reduction Act (40 CFR Part 745.227) will not be sufficient to comply with the requirements of the RRP rule. Under existing protocol, state-certified inspectors follow a prescribed methodology to evaluate a property. They then prepare a report that either declares the property to be "lead-free" or identifies which specific surfaces contain LBP. Regional EPA officials incorrectly opined that such testing, including tests resulting in a determination that a property is "lead free," would not be sufficient to determine whether a property is exempt from the requirements of the RRP rule. This interpretation would have far-reaching implications for many property owners and creates the potential for serious liability exposure. NAA/NMHC have sent a letter (PDF) to the EPA Administrator and have received an informal, yet definitive, response back from Michelle Price, Chief, Lead, Heavy Metals and Inorganics Branch, National Program Chemicals Division Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics at the EPA. Price says that "the interpretation you were getting from Regional personnel is incorrect, and the reply you will get from EPA will say that unequivocally."
Members are advised that that the testing protocols found in the Residential Lead-based Paint Hazard Reduction Act remain appropriate for determining compliance responsibilities under the RRP rule. The EPA will be communicating directly with its regional offices to clarify this matter.Additional information on the rule is available at www.naahq.org/RRP. Members with additional questions can contact Eileen Lee, NMHC's Vice President of Energy and Environmental Policy, at elee@nmhc.org.
NAA/NMHC Affiliate Action Alert (AAA)
We need your help. As your voice in Washington, we know that our direct lobbying efforts are greatly enhanced when combined with letters of support from state and local apartment associations. Those letters are even more powerful when hand-delivered by the NAA/NMHC Joint Legislative Staff.
Therefore, we are creating a new Affiliate Action Alert (AAA) service to complement our existing AIMS Alert system.
The AAA program will essentially create a “library” of affiliate letters on key industry issues that the Joint Legislative Staff can use to support our lobbying efforts.
The program is simple. NAA/NMHC will send NAA affiliates a sample letter on a key issue. NAA affiliates will be asked to reproduce it, personally addressed to their Senators and Representatives, on their letterhead and send it back to NAA/NMHC.
NAA/NMHC’s Joint Legislative Staff will collect these letters and will personally deliver them at the most critical juncture in the legislative process.
Inaugural Letters
To kick off this new system, we are requesting three (3) letters from you. The topics are carried interest, climate change/energy legislation and mandatory Section 8 participation. They are attached here
They are also available here.
Instructions for Participating
1. Personalize the Letter
Please address a copy of the letter to EACH member of the House of Representatives that represents the areas served by your Association as well your state’s two Senators.
Tip: Find the U.S. House of Representatives member for every zip code here.
Find your state’s Senators in the Senate Directory.
• Note: Please do not date the letter.
2. Sign and Print / Produce the Letters
Please sign each letter and either print a copy on your association letterhead or produce a signed PDF version (on letterhead) if you have that capability.
3. Send the Letters to NAA/NMHC
WE STRONGLY REQUEST THAT YOU NOT SEND THE LETTER DIRECTLY TO CONGRESS. Sending them to NAA/NMHC instead will allow us to deliver them to your elected officials at the best possible time and to reinforce your message in person.
Please either e-mail your PDF letters to Irica Solomon at irica@naahq.org or mail the hard copies to her at 4300 Wilson Blvd. Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22203.
Questions?
If you have any questions, please contact Irica Solomon at 703/518-6141, Ext. 123, or irica@naahq.org.
Source of Income Package
Due to recent pressures, several state and local governments have proposed legislation that would add government housing assistance recipients to their list of protected classes in housing law. Such enactments have commonly become known as "source of income" protection laws. In most states where such protections have been added source of income (SOI) has been defined to include federal, state or local housing assistance funds, effectively mandating participation in the federal Section 8 housing Choice Voucher Program.
As part of NAA's effort to combat source of income enactments, in early-June the association filed an Amicus Brief in suppoprt of Glenmont Hill's Petition to Cert to the United States Supreme Court, which was denied. This decision by the Supreme Court left standing a Maryland Supreme court ruling which held that a local Montgomery County source of income ordinance was not in conflict with federal law and therefore that the local law, making Section 8 participation mandatory, could be enforced by the county. In response to these events, at NAA's recent Legislative Committee meeting in Orlando several members requested additional information regarding the source of income protection issue. In addressing this request, NAA's Government Affairs staff has compiled this packet of information for affiliates and members to use in educating themselves and legislators regarding the issue. Additionally, possible strategies for how our industry may deal with this issue going forward are addressed. Employee Free Choice Act of 2007 (aka Card Checking)
To summarize the bill - this was the 110th Congress' chief labor bill which failed on June 26, 2007. If passed, it would change the rules that govern the formation of unions, the way first contracts between unions and employers are negotiated and how employees' rights are enforced. It would allow unions to be certified once a majority of employees have signed union authorization cards, rather than having to take a vote, and it designates a time line for first contracts to be drawn up between unions and employees. Finally, it would increase the fines employers must pay if found guilty of violating their employees' right to unionize.
The current procedure for certifying a union requires that union organizers, under a secret ballot process, ask workers at a designated facility to sign a pledge card expressing their interest to form a union. If 30 percent of the workers sign the cards, then the union can petition the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to conduct a federally-supervised secret election. Prior to the election, both the employer and union are given an opportunity to make the case for their position. If more than 50 percent of the employees vote for the union, then it is certified by the NLRB and the employer must begin collective bargaining.
The bill, if passed, specifically amends the National Labor Relations Act to require the NLRB to certify a union without directing an election, in fact prohibiting one, and the union is not obligated to inform the employer of the organizing campaign.
Other onerous provisions of the bill include binding, compulsory arbitration. If the two sides are not able to reach an agreement within 90 days, the negotiations are referred to a federal mediation panel which would attempt to strike a deal within 30 days. If that fails, then the dispute would be referred to a binding federal arbitration panel which would determine a contract that is binding on both sides for two years.
The bill also had new penalties that are only imposed on the employer during the negotiation process as well as increases in existing penalties. This is seen as a way for the unions to quickly increase their membership, as well as the dues which will increase their financial resources to use for their ambitious legislative agenda on Capitol Hill.
The political dynamics of this issue cannot be understated. Should the Democrats capture 60 or more seats in the Senate and win the White House, this bill will be re-introduced and has a very real chance of passing in the next congress; this could be the first big political fight for our industry next year.
NAA has provided a document by the US Chamber of Commerce outlining additional specifics of the issue.
Click here for the document.
CAPITOL REPORT 2008
View/Print Capitol Report 2008 PMAM Legislative Committee Reports
View reports from our state legislative committee and lobbyist, Kelley Cawthorne to stay informed of issues that are being monitored and acted upon at the state level.
If you are interested in being an active part of the solution at the local level please contact your local affiliate. It's important to establish relationships with legislators at the local, state and federal levels.November 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
November 2008
August 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
January 2008
October 2007
September 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006