Ohio puppy mill legislation would require dog breeders to buy surety bonds

by on January 6, 2012

 

 

 

Puppy mill owners and other high volume dog breeders in Ohio have the state’s legislators barking at their heels.

In an effort to reduce puppy mill cruelty, Ohio Senate Bill 130 aims to establish higher standards for the state’s dog breeders.

According to The Humane Society, “Ohio is rapidly becoming one of the leading states for puppy mills, the cruel commercial dog breeding operations that mass-produce puppies for sale through pet stores, over the Internet and directly to the public.”

The bill would amend and add sections to licensing requirements and standards of care for dog breeders in Ohio. One of the proposed rules would require high volume breeders to provide evidence of insurance or a surety bond when applying for a license in the state.

Proposed surety bond amounts for high volume breeders included in SB 130 are as follows:

  • $5,000 for fewer than 25 adult dogs
  • $10,000 26 to 50 adult dogs
  • $50,000 for more than 50 adult dogs

If needed, the funds provided by an Ohio dog breeder surety bond would pay for the maintenance and care of dogs that are seized or otherwise impounded from the high volume breeder.

The bill was introduced on March 3, 2011. The bill was assigned to the Agriculture, Environment & Natural Resources Committee, which has yet to make a report. As such, the proposed legislation currently remains in limbo. However, it could resurface now that the 129th general assembly has reconvened.

 

{ 0 comments }

Oregon revises appraisal management company bond form

by Danielle on January 5, 2012

Appraisal management companies working in Oregon will now file their bonds with the state’s Appraiser Certification and Licensure Board.  The board was created in 1991, but AMCs had previously filed their bonds with the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services, Division of Finance and Corporate Securities.

The required appraisal management bond amount remains $25,000.

Under Chapter 447, Section 9 of 2011 Oregon Laws, appraisal management companies must file a $25,000 Oregon surety bond with the Department of Consumer and Business Services. The bonds are used to reimburse individuals who have been harmed by negligent or improper real estate appraisal activity, appraisal management services, breach of contract in performing real estate appraisals, or any other appraisal management activity not in compliance with the law.

Download the Oregon Appraisal Management Company Bond Form (Updated 1/12).

Oregon AMCs will mail the original copy of their legally executed bond to:

Appraiser Certification and Licensure Board
3000 Market St. NE, Ste. 541
Salem, OR 97301

The board can be reached by phone at (503) 485-2555, by fax at (503) 485-2559 or at www.oregonaclb.org.

{ 0 comments }

Discovery Channel’s moonshiners discuss need for surety bonds

by Danielle on January 4, 2012

 

 

 

Trouble, like moonshine, could be brewing for some Virginian men looking to get a distillery bond.

On a recent episode of “Moonshiners,” one of the stars expressed difficulty in getting a $200,000 surety bond. The Discovery Channel airs the show, which “tells the story of those who brew their shine — often in the woods near their homes using camouflaged equipment — and the local authorities who try to keep them honest.”

Brewing moonshine without proper distillery registration is an act that’s illegal at the federal level. Tim, one of the show’s main characters, has begun the process of legitimizing his practice by registering it with the proper authorities. He runs into trouble, though, when he’s told he needs a $200,000 bond.

When filing an application to register a distillery plant, applicants must provide a surety bond that will cover distilled spirit operations at the site. The bond provides a financial guarantee that the distiller will

  • comply with all provisions of certain laws and regulations relating to distillery activities
  • pay all taxes imposed by 26 U.S.C. Chapter 51
  • pay all penalties incurred or fines imposed for violation of any such provisions

Although their intended purpose is to ensure distillers comply with regulations and practices safe techniques, the bonds also keep some individuals from registering a distillery, whether for personal or professional production.

According to the federal Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, “There are numerous requirements that must be met that make it impractical to produce spirits for personal or beverage use.” The need to provide a surety bond is one such requirement listed.

The difficulty involved in getting a distillery bond depends on the bond amount needed, which will vary depending on who exactly is requiring the bond.

For example, Tim, who’s looking to register a legitimate moonshine business, says he needs a $200,000 surety bond to register a distillery in his area. Such a high bonding threshold means most moonshine producers won’t qualify for and/or be able to afford the needed bond, which frequently keeps smaller producers out of the market. As a result, the inability to be bonded can keep smaller distillery owners, such as those featured on “Moonshiners,” from being able to legally register a distillery.

 

{ 0 comments }

Louisiana updates contractor bonding requirements for home elevation projects

by Danielle on January 3, 2012

 

 

 

The story of David versus Goliath is an age-old tale, and one that’s all too common in the construction industry. Unfortunately, the real-world Davids rarely emerge from battle as the winners, especially when contract bond requirements limit their access to construction projects. Smaller contractors often have trouble funding, or even qualifying for, the surety bonds they need. When contractors are unable to purchase surety bonds as required by law, they’re automatically disqualified from many publicly funded construction projects. Because large contracting firms usually don’t have this problem, bonding requirements can create an unintentional monopoly in certain situations. Such was the case with a recent controversy in Louisiana.

On Nov. 1, 2011, Louisiana’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program instituted a rule that required contracting firms to file performance bonds with the state before beginning work on a home elevation project. The program has funded numerous projects to restore structures in the state following the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Gov. Bobby Jindal originally proposed the bonding rules on August 19, 2011, after numerous reports of fly-by-night contractors who disappeared after receiving payment for home elevation projects. Other contractors left behind shoddy work or failed to complete jobs altogether, leaving homeowners and the state to deal with additional financial loss.

According to an article by the The Times-Picayune out of New Orleans, the state said the goal of the new surety bond rules was to prevent contractors from “collecting an 80 percent advance payment on a grant only to walk off the job without finishing.”

However, small contracting firms were unable to find bonding companies who would issue them the needed bonds. Similarly, some who were able to qualify for the bonds were ultimately unable to pay their steep premiums. This gave larger contracting firms an advantage at securing valuable contracts, which is a common problem state agencies face when setting surety bond requirements.

As a result of the many complaints smaller contractors file with the state, an alternative to the bonding requirement was added before the new rules went into effect on December 1, 2011.

To qualify for the bonding exemption, contracting firms

  • must show proof that they cannot get the required surety bond
  • must get the homeowner’s approval to waive the bonding requirement
  • can only collect 25 percent of the payment up front (rather than 80 percent)
  • may only work on a maximum of four projects at one time
  • must meet new insurance and warranty rules

In an interview with The Times-Picayune, State Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater said the updated rules would “protect homeowners without stifling competition or giving larger firms an unfair advantage.”

{ 0 comments }

Happy holidays from SuretyBonds.com — our office closes at 3 p.m. today

by Danielle on December 9, 2011

 

 

 

 

The SuretyBonds.com office will close at 3 p.m. today for our annual holiday party. You may contact us directly by calling (800) 308-4358 beginning Monday at 8 a.m. CST. If you would like a free surety bond cost quote, fill out our quick and easy online contact form any time. A surety specialist will get in touch with you as soon as possible.

{ 0 comments }

Proposed surety bond changes in South Carolina to safeguard small businesses

by Danielle on December 7, 2011

South Carolina congressman Mick Mulvaney issued the following press release on December 2.

 

 

 

Hanna, Mulvaney Introduce Surety Bond Bill to Safeguard Small Businesses

Bill provides extra protection to construction industry subcontractors, suppliers

Washington, Dec 2— While the nation’s unemployment rate hasn’t dropped in months, one of the hardest hit industries remains the construction trades.

U.S. Representatives Richard Hanna (R-NY) and Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) introduced legislation that will help ease the worry of subcontractors and suppliers about whether or not they will be paid for their services. Hanna serves on the House Small Business Committee with Mulvaney who is chairman of the Contracting and Workforce Subcommittee.

H.R. 3534, the Security in Bonding Act of 2011, will protect small businesses and taxpayers by strengthening the bonding process and removing opportunities for fraud and abuse. The federal government allows contractors to pledge collateral directly to the government in lieu of furnishing corporate surety bonds.

The Security in Bonding Act of 2011 closes a loophole that allowed unscrupulous businesses to offer inadequate assets to back a bond. The lack of oversight on non-corporate sureties has resulted in a number of documented cases where assets pledged to back the bond have been illusory or insufficient.

Among the highlights of the bill:

  • Requires non-corporate sureties to pledge specific and secure assets as required from others providing collateral to the federal government
  • Requires those assets be held by a government entity, with the ability to accrue interest, to ensure payment can be made in the event they are needed.
  • Allows the government to ensure payment of subcontractors and suppliers.

Hanna and Mulvaney say it’s time to close the loophole and protect honest small businesses.

“The Security in Bonding Act will protect the construction industry from bad practices that hurt their bottom line and hinder their ability to grow and create jobs,” Congressman Hanna said. “I spent more than 30 years in the industry and saw first-hand the damage that can occur when inadequate bonding was secured for a project.  It hurts everyone, particularly the small businesses suppliers and subcontractors who provide goods and services — yet risk not being paid for their work.

“This common-sense fix will strengthen the integrity of the bonding process.  The construction industry has been one of the hardest hit sectors since the beginning of the economic downturn.  This legislation provides more certainty and security for small businesses that deserve to get paid for their work.  These companies should focus on how to expand and create jobs — rather than worry about whether or not they will get paid.”

“The inability of government contracting officers to determine the real value of non-corporate security bonds has caused significant harm to small business, subcontractors and suppliers, and taxpayers,” Chairman Mulvaney said. “This legislation will increase transparency and restore the faith of long-overlooked subcontractors and suppliers — who no longer have to fear they will not receive payment to claims they are owed. The Security in Bonding Act will cut down on fraud and abuse in the non-corporate surety market, providing more certainty for the thousands of businesses who contract with the federal government.”

{ 0 comments }

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →