Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 04/29/2021City of Fort Collins Page 1 April 29, 2021 Alan Cram, Chair Tim Johnson, Vice Chair Brad Massey Katharine Penning Eric Richards Justin Robinson Staff Liaison: Mark Teplitsky Marcus Coldiron Interim Chief Building Official Meeting Minutes April 29, 2021 A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held virtually on Thursday, April 29, 2021, at 9:00 a.m.  CALL TO ORDER Chair Cram called the meeting to order at 9:02 a.m. Mr. Anderson read a statement regarding authorization and procedures for remote meetings.  ROLL CALL PRESENT: Cram, Johnson, Massey, Penning, Richards, Teplitsky ABSENT: Robinson STAFF: Anderson, Manno, Schmidt, Brennan, Hoffman, Schiager, Hovland, Schlam  PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None.  DISCUSSION AGENDA [Timestamp: 9:07 a.m.] 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 25, 2021 MEETING. Member Johnson moved to approve the minutes of the March 25, 2021 meeting. Member Richards seconded. The motion passed 6-0. Building Review Board City of Fort Collins Page 2 April 29, 2021 2. APPEAL OF DECISION ON 503 W MULBERRY DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is for the Building Review Board to consider an appeal of the Chief Building Official’s determination that 503 W. Mulberry St is not a Duplex/Two-Family Dwelling. Disclosure of Conflicts None. Staff Presentation Rich Anderson presented the staff report as presented in the agenda packet. Board Comments on Site Visit NO SITE VISIT Procedural Considerations None. Appellant and Parties-in-Interest in Support of Appeal Arguments Mr. Beaner, Property Manager for Stegner Rentals, spoke on behalf of Appellant. Mr. Beaner asked the Board to grandfather in the property as a duplex, due to decades of use as a duplex. The owner had purchased it as a duplex from a previous owner who did the same in the 1970s. Each side of the dwelling had a separate mailing address, and the only other evidence he had were pictures to show the longstanding operation as a duplex. Mr. Beaner clarified he was the potential property manager, because he could not manage an illegal property. Staff Response Mr. Anderson stated based on the testimony and pictures provided by the Appellant, he had concerns with fire separation between units. Another concern was there was one electric meter, because the City had not provided two for a duplex. Current Code required separate electric meters so tenants could each pay their portion. From the pictures, there appeared to be new water heaters in the basement for which no permits were issued nor for the associated piping. Mr. Anderson said it was something the City and the owner could work on together. Appellant Rebuttal Mr. Beaner had no additional comments, but again pointed to the age of the modifications to the home. Board Questions of Staff and Parties-in-Interest Ms. Penning asked Mr. Anderson what the process would be to get the home up to Code as duplex. Mr. Anderson said the Zoning district in which the home was located allowed duplexes. However, the property would have to undergo a change of use development review process to change existing use of home to single-family attached. Ms. Penning requested information on the updates to the building that would be required. Mr. Anderson said there was an exception to the Code for sprinklers: if they were not required in the single-family home when it was built the City could not require the owner to retrofit. The City would do its best to ensure fire separation without destructive inspections. Mr. Anderson said the City would require separate electricity. He was open to modification requests and alternative methods of compliance, and he would work with applicant but could not make promises as to what Energy Services would require. Member Johnson asked Mr. Anderson if there was a process for grandfathering in an existing duplex. Mr. Anderson stated the words in the Code book were existing non-conforming or existing compliant. The problem was the City had never acknowledged the structure as a legal duplex, so it could not be deemed legal non-conforming. The Board entered a brief pause due to technical issues with Zoom. Member Johnson dropped out and rejoined the meeting, during which it was paused to allow him to re-join. Member Anderson continued the issue was if the City treated the property as a duplex without officially blessing it. For example, if the City had given the property two water meters or inspected a separate kitchen, it would be a de facto duplex only lacking a Certificate of Occupancy, but that was not the case with the property. City of Fort Collins Page 3 April 29, 2021 Member Teplitsky asked if separate sewers would be required for a duplex and as to the current sewer status of the property. Mr. Anderson replied separate sewer connections were not required because the duplexes were not individually platted pieces of land. Ms. Penning noted she had recently gone through the process of converting single family homes to four-unit rental properties. It was a fairly easy process to go through with Planning. The most extensive piece was the electrical and getting separate meters. Her opinion was the bookcase had to be gypped in and the owner needed to find an architect to draft up the house and take it to Planning. Chair Cram remarked that a lot of circuits were probably shared, as well as breakers. He asked about whether the narrow, steep stairs would have to conform. Mr. Anderson said under the IRC they would be allowed to remain in the original manner in which they were installed. The City would work with an Applicant on life safety items. However, without a plan or proper inspection, Mr. Anderson could not say what changes would be required. Member Massey was in agreement with Ms. Penning. He was glad Zoning allowed for a duplex and that City Staff would work with the owner. Since the property would be rented to separate families, it was worth doing the extra step of basics due to some apparent egregious Code violations. Member Teplitsky asked Mr. Beaner when the owner purchased the property, how it got to this point, and if the goal was to rent to different families. The owner purchased the property in 2012 and hired Stegner Property Management to run it. He was helping the owner figure out how to convert it to a legal duplex. Member Richards asked if drafts of floorplans would be required to legalize the duplex. Mr. Anderson said a floorplan to determine ingress and egress, as well as basic life safety items would be required. Member Richards asked if a lot of work would be required to get to a basic level with the wiring. Mr. Anderson said the electrical would be a significant amount of work, which is why he brought up alternate methods of compliance. Member Richards voiced concern over life safety issues such as fire separation and electrical. Mr. Anderson clarified life safety part was of the process, not a 100% upgrade but enough to ensure safety and no fire hazards. Mr. Beaner appreciated all the feedback. Mr. Anderson was extremely grateful for the Applicant’s approach to the situation. He recommended the Board uphold CBO’s decision not to deem 503 W Mulberry a two-family dwelling and require the owner to submit plans to convert the property into a duplex. Member Teplitsky thanked Mr. Beaner for his approach. He would support alternative compliance, but if people would be living there the building had to be up to Code, despite the historical use of the property. Motion Chair closed the hearing and asked for a motion. Member Richards moved to uphold the Chief Building Official’s decision to not approve this property as an existing Two-Family/Duplex dwelling and require the owner to submit plans to convert this Single-Family Dwelling to a Two-Family dwelling ensuring compliance with all City Code requirements. Member Penning seconded. Board Discussion No further discussion. The motion passed 6-0. [Timestamp: 9:55 a.m.] 3. EXPIRED ROOFING PERMITS DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to obtain a decision from the Board as to the preferred action by the Building Department for contractors that have expired roofing permits. Staff Report Mr. Hoffman presented the staff report as presented in the agenda packet. City of Fort Collins Page 4 April 29, 2021 Public Input None Board Questions and Discussion Member Johnson asked if those trying to come into compliance were treated differently than those in radio silence. Ms. Manno said that was correct. Member Penning asked if contractors did construction and did not close out paperwork or let the permit lapse without going through construction. Mr. Hoffman stated the work had been completed and verified. Over 600 contractors had pulled permits but not called for inspection so the City had to assume the work had been done. Ms. Manno noted the spreadsheets in the Hearing Packet were separated out to show exactly where each permit was in the process of being closed out. The City was targeting the environmental waste management plan requirement that went into the Code years ago, and contractors needed to bring their permits into compliance with Code. Member Richards asked what a suspension entailed and how a contractor would get off suspension. Mr. Anderson stated his intention was to suspend the contractors on the list for longer than the 45 days allowed via City Code. The City was requesting indefinite suspension until the permits were closed out and issued letters of completion, when the contractors would be reinstated. The City’s intention was to work with contractors but also to provide necessary services for citizens. Member Richards asked if revocation was harsher than suspension and required more steps for reinstatement. Mr. Anderson agreed and noted due process is required before the Board for revocation. The Board could suspend contractors more than 45 days, and Mr. Anderson was asking the Board to delegate that authority to him with the idea reinstatement would occur under a certain set of circumstances. Member Richards asked how difficult it would be for contractors to locate their receipt from disposing of materials and obtain compliance with the waste management requirement. Mr. Hoffman noted 15,000 roofs had passed, it was just a matter of getting it done and City licensed contractors knew it was a requirement. Mr. Anderson said Environmental Services had created a submittal process online so there was no need to scan or send in a receipt, and Environmental Services had worked with contractors who did not have receipts. Ms. Manno directed the Board to the outreach completed by Mr. Anderson to roofing contractors in the Hearing Packet prior to asking for extended suspensions. The Roofing Newsletter included a survey gizmo to upload the receipt for review and entry by the City. Mr. Anderson explained the City had a history of roofing inspections without expiration dates as required by Code, due to disaster response by the former CBO when two large hailstorms had occurred in quick succession in Fort Collins. The City waited until the backlog was caught up to correct it. During disaster mitigation, City Staff had often worked outside established rules for the benefit of the public. It was an administrative decision rather than putting extra work on Staff to extend each individual permit. To rectify this, City Staff automatically extended permits and reached out to the contractors at least twice to communicate the April 30 deadline. Member Massey disclosed his home was one of the permits in question, but it would not affect his judgment. He had received a tag on the door saying it had been inspected so the issue was likely waste management. Member Teplitsky expressed concern about contractors who may have lost their receipt and asked if there would be a path to compliance. Mr. Hoffman stated Environmental Services has a way to calculate and complete a waste management plan without a dump ticket. Member Teplitsky expressed concern the City was being hard on reputable roofers. Mr. Anderson stated he had positive experiences with the ones who had reached out to him because they were not the bad actors. Any contractor that reached out to Linda in Environmental Services had a positive resolution. The City was trying to reach those who were ignoring requirements. Indefinite suspension would allow the City to protect the community. Member Teplitsky acknowledged the process was necessary but questioned why reputable guys would not schedule inspections. Mr. Anderson stated before he was with the City, homeowners were responsible to schedule the inspection and the expiration letter was only sent to the homeowner. The City was doubling up efforts to get the homeowner and contractor, as the permit says “the homeowner and authorized agent”. Chair Cram was grateful a proposed motion was provided by Staff. Member Richards commended Mr. Anderson and Staff for their attempts to come up with viable solution. He was leaning toward allowing suspension to encourage contractors to come in and work with the City because it would be beneficial to the community. City of Fort Collins Page 5 April 29, 2021 Member Massey asked if suspensions moved forward, what would happen to permits in process so as not to leave homeowners in limbo. Mr. Anderson said that would require a high level of customer service on City Staff’s part and they were willing to take it on to allow inspections to occur. It would be hard for the City but necessary to ensure compliance. Member Teplitsky put forward an alternative resolution, a final notice that gave contractors 30 days until suspension because most were trying to do the right thing. Mr. Anderson said the Staff recommendation was the Staff recommendation, but he was seeking guidance from the Board. Chair Cram said the contractors had been notified repeatedly and if contractors were given 30 days, the Board would be right back in the same position next month. Chair Cram felt Mr. Anderson and Staff had gone on a limb to provide additional services to the contractors on the list. Board Deliberation Chair Cram asked for a motion. Member Teplitsky made a motion to approve, and Chair Cram asked if Member Teplitsky was making the proposed Staff motion in the report. Member Richards asked if taxes would be charged again as a penalty. Mr. Anderson said it would be the usual half permit fee when permits expire to allow for Staff time and customer service. Member Richards did not like charging a fee because the contractor would be acting in good faith. Mr. Anderson stated if the contractor contacted the City before expiration, the City would grant it free of charge. Mr. Hoffman reminded the Board that the City reached out to contractors back in September and again in April. He had reached out to almost everybody on the list via phone or email. Ample time had been given. Member Richards asked if those that had reached out would be subject to the fee, and Mr. Hoffman said no. Member Teplitksy moved to allow City staff to address failure to complete roofing permit requirements issued during the period from ____ to ____ in connection with significant hail events in accordance with City Code in accordance with the following:  The Chief Building Official is authorized to suspend licenses and supervisors’ certificates and exempt registration for up to ______ days/months;  The contractor must request that the expired permit be re-issued full and pay any applicable fees to reinstate expired permits;  Once listed permits are completed and pass inspection, contractors must submit in writing to the Chief Building Official that they have completed all expired permits and request that the suspension of their license and supervisor’s certificate or exempt registration be reinstated and the Chief Building Office is authorized to terminate the suspension and reinstate such license, certificate, or exempt registration; and  Any revocation of a license, certificate, or exempt registration must be referred to the BRB in accordance with City Code. Mr. Anderson stated the motion was incomplete without the blanks filled in. The above motion died for lack of a second due to lack of completeness. Member Teplitsky moved to allow City staff to address failure to complete roofing permit requirements issued during the period from July 1, 2019 to November 1, 2020 in connection with significant hail events in accordance with City Code in accordance with the following:  The Chief Building Official is authorized to suspend as of May 1, 2021 licenses and supervisors’ certificates and exempt registration indefinitely;  The contractor must request that the expired permit be re-issued full and pay any applicable fees to reinstate expired permits;  Once listed permits are completed and pass inspection, contractors must submit in writing to the Chief Building Official that they have completed all expired permits and request that the suspension of their license and supervisor’s certificate or exempt registration be reinstated and the Chief Building Office is authorized to terminate the suspension and reinstate such license, certificate, or exempt registration; and  Any revocation of a license, certificate, or exempt registration must be referred to the BRB in accordance with City Code. City of Fort Collins Page 6 April 29, 2021 Member Richards seconded. The motion passed 6-0. [Timestamp: 10:52 a.m.] Member Richards requested a short recess. The meeting was called back to order at 11:01 am. A roll call was taken to ensure the Board attendance had not changed; all six were present. 4. SUSPENSION OF RICHARD GRAY SUPERVISOR CERTIFICATE AND CONTRACTOR LICENSE DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this Item is to provide information on the actions of Richard Gray, resulting in the Chief Building Official Suspending his supervisor certificate and contractor license with the City of Fort Collins. Staff Report Rich Anderson and Jesse Schlam presented the staff report as presented in the agenda packet. Applicant Presentation Mr. Gray gave the Applicant presentation. He had been a licensed contractor in the City for 25 years and had worked with Houts Development for seven to eight years. He disagreed with the Staff presentation that he was not onsite. He did not go to inspections last year because of Covid. He met with Mr. Anderson in November and agreed to place a fence behind the property and to post No Trespassing signs, which had been done. Erosion was on the developer. To continue a job took money, and he could not work without being paid. Mr. Houts did not have the money to get framing packs to the job site to complete the work. If a fence was required, the City could have told him. When Mr. Anderson called about the license suspension, he did not know why. He wanted his name off the permits which he could have done six months prior, but Mr. Houts kept promising financing would come through. City Rebuttal Mr. Anderson directed the Board to recent photographs of the job site. There were no signs or fencing when the photos were taken, and Staff had reported no signs. Mr. Anderson called Mr. Gray and explained the suspension was for lack of communication and lack of supervision. The City understood lack of financing and jobs slowing, but the main concern was lack of supervision and communication. Mr. Gray was responsible to communicate with the Building Department and keep an eye on permit expirations. The City regularly sent letters and notifications to contractors to help, but it was the contractor’s responsibility to communicate and take a proactive role in construction projects. Staff believed Mr. Gray failed to uphold his responsibilities under City Code. Applicant Rebuttal Mr. Gray was sorry he did not communicate with the City because he was not good with the internet. He thought he did not have to communicate after the November meeting when he put up the No Trespassing signs and the fencing. The developer was responsible for erosion. He did not think it was fair to take away his license because he framed and sided in the City under that license. He could not work for free. He wanted Mr. Houts to speak to add supporting testimony to the rebuttal. Mr. Houts had hired Mr. Gray as his contractor. The project was 18 units, with nine completed. There had been two batches of permits submitted, one in late 2018 with the intention to start in 2019 and one late 2019 with the intention to start in 2020. The project was taking an extraordinary amount of time due to complications related to construction financing. Mr. Gray was handling traditional duties. The communication issues started in October, three to four months into the funding crisis. Mr. Gray was available and on call the entire time. Mr. Anderson reached out to Mr. Houts to try to create some fence security and they agreed yellow ribboning would help as an intermediate measure until fencing could be installed. The goal was to have fence up by October 20, but were not able to complete it until November 10. The fencing was placed on the public sides of lot, with four No Trespassing signs that he continued to keep in working order. Mr. Houts hired Mr. Gray as a prime subcontractor where the scope was clear as to whom does what. Mr. Houts could do things that did not require licensing and provide administrative support. The administrator could provide communication without supervising. Construction was managed by Mr. Gray, but site conditions were global. Violations were common with mud, melt, and dragout. By the time of the serious violations, they were in in months six and seven of their funding crisis with minimal resources, but they corrected the issues as soon as they could. They knew permits would expire in City of Fort Collins Page 7 April 29, 2021 April and they would have to reach out to Building Department to find out how to proceed. They were working toward a solution when he received Mr. Anderson’s call about the suspended license. Before that, it seemed they had gotten to an alternative level of compliance, and everyone was looking toward moving forward. On April 14, when Mr. Anderson called Mr. Houts, he believed they were mostly in compliance. He had been working with Mr. Schlam on the three unresolved items, who said the issues needed to be resolved or escrow money would be drawn out of the account and need be replaced for work to begin. April was a rainy and snowy month, so there was a lot of erosion created by tracking in and out of sites. In March, all permits were active and Mr. Houts was hustling trying to get progress so he did not believe there was a need to communicate. Mr. Gray had been quiet because work was not taking place, not because he was indifferent. The shortcomings in the subdivision were Mr. Houts’s, not Mr. Gray’s. City Redirect Member Anderson highlighted parts of Mr. Houts’s testimony. Mr. Houts admitted to acting as a supervisor because he was supervising subcontractors by directing hiring. Mr. Gray agreed to supervise by obtaining the permit but did not fit the definition of supervision in City Code by working for Mr. Houts instead of the other way around. It was the responsibility of the supervisor to ensure proper supervision of those below them, which has been an issue with Mr. Gray. Mr. Anderson had agreed to three runs of Caution tape around the property but went a couple weeks later to find no tape. When Mr. Anderson contacted Mr. Houts, Mr. Anderson was told it was too hard to maintain because of wind. Maintenance of a site is the responsibility of general contractor. Mr. Schlam said he had about 150 sites across the City, with about 60 active sites; zero other stop work orders were issued during April but he had recently issued or would issue two NOVs. Mr. Schlam would go straight to Mr. Houts to get an issue corrected. Typically, Mr. Schlam saw minor issues as the slow ones, but major stuff was acted on readily. There had been close to an inch and a half of precipitation in April, causing increased trackout; verbal communications and written communications had gone out to a good number of contractors around the City that resulted in compliance. Mr. Anderson directed the Board to emails included in the Hearing Packet. He was told basement slab and framing for 4007 and 4009 Rock Creek Drive would occur January 25 and take a normal build time of four to five months but no work had happened to date. A similar expectation was communicated for 5207 and 5209 Sunglow Court by Mr. Houts but no work had been done. Prior to this Mr. Anderson had asked them to set reasonable expectations and this timeline was agreed upon. With both incidents, there was no communication to Staff to explain why work had not taken place until Staff reached out to them. Public Input None Board Questions and Discussion Member Richards asked Mr. Gray if he willingly pulled the permits understanding the responsibility and implications under his license. He understood. He had been doing this for seven to eight years and had overseen the electrician and the plumber. Without money what could he do? He could not use his own money and needed to work. Member Richards asked if Mr. Gray had received other violations on his license. Mr. Gray recalled one violation 20 years prior where a roofing ridgecap was installed in the wrong direction but he corrected it. Member Richards asked if Mr. Gray was on site and overseeing all the trades. Mr. Gray said that was correct and he did the framing, as well. Ms. Manno responded to the violations on file after reviewing the City system. A stop work order was issued January 18, 2019 for working without permits on 5218 and 5220 Sunglow. The footings and foundations were poured without permits. That was the most recent condition notice added to Mr. Gray’s license. His framing license had not been active since March 10, 2006. Mr. Gray stated he had been doing work, including framing under his general contractor license. He believed the 2019 violation was a miscommunication and got it straightened out when he talked to Russ Hovland, the Chief Building Official at the time. Mr. Anderson also had an additional violation to discuss. Mr. Gray was made aware by Mr. Anderson’s office that he pulled a permit in 2006 for Single Family home that was currently expired and had not received a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Gray asked to be withdrawn as framing contractor. Mr. Gray said the permit was pulled but the house was never built. He was the framing contractor and Gary Mackey, the general contractor had passed away. He did not pull the permit because he was not the general contractor. There was another expired permit from 2003 but he was just the framer, not the general contractor. City of Fort Collins Page 8 April 29, 2021 Member Teplitsky asked Mr. Anderson if Mr. Gray was the general contractor were subs supposed to work for him and if they were working for him. Mr. Anderson could not speak to the contract between Mr. Gray and Mr. Houts, but he directed the Board to Article V, Chapter 15 for reference on supervisor certificate responsibility to be knowledgeable of all work on the job site. Mr. Anderson could not speak to Mr. Gray’s presence on site, only to what Staff who visited the site reported. Member Teplitsky asked if Mr. Gray was controlling the whole job as a general contractor. Mr. Gray said he was, controlling the framing crew, the plumber, the electrician, and HVAC. He was on site all the time. He had never missed an inspection until last May or June because of Covid. Mr. Houts had multiple subprime contracts with vendors. Mr. Houts paid the bills, and Mr. Gray provided supervision and got compensation under his contract for milestones and management of the site as a supervisor Ms. Manno explained for each project the City of Fort Collins required a fully licensed professional to be the onsite super listed on every permit. Mr. Gray was the licensed general contractor, as well as holding the supervisor certificate. This required him to be fully in charge of running the projects and available for all inspections. He was responsible to be knowledgeable on all projects put in place, regardless of the contract between him and the developer. Member Massey asked if the general contractor is required to hold contracts with the subs. Ms. Manno replied not necessarily, but the supervisor must direct the subs. Mr. Anderson clarified the City did not have purview over transactions, but the expectation of the supervisor certificate was to set the schedules, stay on top of inspections, make sure building followed the approved plans, and ensure alterations to plans were resubmitted to the City for approval. Member Richards asked why Mr. Gray was not available onsite for meetings and inspections and if Mr. Gray communicated that he was uncomfortable or unable to come to the City. Mr. Gray said he should have communicated to the City, and he was sorry. Covid was something new and he did not know what to expect. Member Richards asked if he had been given notification an inspection was occurring and he was expected onsite. Mr. Gray replied he had and should have called the City. Member Johnson asked if Mr. Gray had called in the inspections. Mr. Gray replied he had scheduled the inspections but did not show up because he was so scared of Covid. Member Teplitsky wanted to clarify if licensing rules were violated and how. He asked what the normal procedures were when a general contractor was on a job and funding stopped. He asked if the site environmental safety issues were a violation of contractor license rules and the site development plan. Mr. Anderson replied the issues were failing to supervise as required, due to the lack of progress and permits expiring. He agreed site element controls were part of the development agreement but if Mr. Gray had been on site managing the projects as required by his license he would have taken corrective action. The other issues were the project not progressing with the timeframe and lack of performance and execution on the foundations. Another issue was expired permits, which violated Code. The foundations were poured without a permit, which showed a pattern of behavior. Mr. Anderson suspended the license to get the Board’s direction. Member Teplitsky asked Mr. Houts if funding challenges were resolved and if funding improved, would he move ahead full speed with the project. Mr. Houts stated funding issues were always slow but he intended to build and be compliant. He respected the expertise of Mr. Gray and let him stay in his lane, following a role list they had developed together. Mr. Houts’s participation was relatively heavy compared to other owners and developers because of his expertise. Money was not flowing yet, but signatures were pending. He agreed there had been a difference in Mr. Gray’s approach to erosion control in the past versus this project, but it should not be interpreted as Mr. Gray’s management style and intent for the site construction. Member Teplitsky said it was an active project, despite funding issues, based on erosion control and promises made to the Building Department. He stated there was an open permit and an ongoing project where obligations must be met. It was Mr. Gray’s responsibility as the license holder but they were stuck. Mr. Houts responded that was exactly why they were there. Two of the four permits were still active, and reactivating permits required a good license and payment of half the fee. When Mr. Gray said he could not be paid, he was also referencing that they could not pay vendors; they cannot get work they cannot pay for. Member Johnson asked about the timeline for the early 2020 concern about open excavations and lack of site control. Mr. Anderson said temporary efforts were made, but the project was not safed off and work did not progress. There was a continuing followup in late 2020, where fencing and other steps occurred, asking where the project was as far as providing a safe environment for the citizens of Fort Collins. Safety was the requirement for the Chief Building Official and what the Board needed to be looking at, too. At the time, there was a commitment of work commencing in late January, maybe February. Nothing occurred, which meant safety continued to be a problem between January and the City of Fort Collins Page 9 April 29, 2021 hearing, which is why they were sitting there hearing a suspension notice. The City was trying to resolve that issue and protect the public. He understood the financing piece, but there was a huge public safety aspect. How the work would be paid was not the City’s concern. What was important was a safe situation for the residents of the City. Additionally, the stormwater component should not be minimized because there would be huge environmental regulation costs if that became problematic. Member Johnson saw the suspension as a last resort, as evidenced by the year of correspondence between Mr. Anderson and Mr. Gray and Mr. Houts. He thought the City was reasonable in pursuing a resolution. The situation was unfortunate on multiple levels, but he appreciated Mr. Anderson’s focus on public safety. Mr. Anderson stated during his conversation with Mr. Houts about Mr. Gray’s suspension, Mr. Houts asked if the Board take it into consideration if he put fence up. Mr. Anderson said he could not predict what the Board would do, but his personal opinion was anything would show good faith. Member Richards asked Mr. Anderson about the steps involved to move forward with job sites if Mr. Gray’s license was revoked by the Board. Mr. Houts said he would need a new general contractor to take over projects because he did not have a license. The issue was whether Mr. Gray’s license should be revoked for failure to supervise, but he did supervise. Maybe Mr. Gray should have been more active in communicating their challenges to the City, but that did not indicate a license revocation. They had built almost 20 units together and had a system. When Covid hit, the system got disrupted. He proposed securing immediately while they sorted through the permit condition. He thought it was a case of guilt by association with a developer/owner who ran into financing challenges. They did have the means to secure the site and the weather was improving so they could get it done quickly Chair Cram asked Member Richards if his question was answered. Member Richards said no and asked Mr. Anderson what the steps would be. Mr. Anderson said Mr. Houts would have to find another general contractor to take over the projects. Member Richards asked Mr. Gray if he asked to be removed from the building permits. Mr. Gray said he did not want to be off the permits because they had been doing it for seven to eight years. However, if he was not getting paid, he could not stay and work. Member Teplitsky asked whether foundations were adequately secured as of the day of the hearing. Mr. Gray said yes, there was fence on the back side and No Trespassing signs. Member Teplitsky asked if the City requested the properties backfilled and 360 degree fencing. Mr. Gray said he would have done it if City asked. Member Teplitsky asked the City if the request had been honored. Mr. Anderson said part of the request was honored, because the agreement was to install the fencing that would be part of the permanent structure and they were supposed to frame in the floor, ceiling, and the basement to secure the foundation which had not been done. In the email, they asked if more fencing was requested, but the City did not request it because Staff thought things were moving forward with the original plan. No one came back to the City to say they did not have financing. Member Teplitsky asked if the back foundations had been backfilled. Mr. Gray responded all but where the windows for the basement were, those had not been backfilled because he would need to buy the material for windows to backfill. Member Johnson asked Mr. Anderson about the process afterward if the Board suspended the license. Mr. Anderson stated he had suspended the license for 45 days, and the Board could go with Staff’s recommendation to revoke, the Board could take no action and the license would be immediately active after 45 days pursuant to City Code or the Board could make other recommendations as they see fit. Member Johnson asked if a revocation would require new application for a new supervisor certificate or if it was gone forever. Ms. Manno stated she would have Mr. Gray go before the Board to determine if a new license and supervisor certificate could be issued. Member Teplitsky recommended continuing with suspension until Mr. Houts confirms the financing is 100 percent in place, Mr. Gray was being paid to fulfill all his duties, and the site was in complete compliance, but not to revoke. Member Johnson commented he was concerned that would intermingle the City with the financing, which did not seem right, although the financing was part of the problem. Member Teplitsky said that was right, but perhaps a testimony that everything was moving forward, but the financing was a big part of that. Member Johnson understood Member Teplitsky’s sentiment but was concerned. Chair Cram agreed but the Board could not get involved in their issue of financing, and he did not see dragging this out. City of Fort Collins Page 10 April 29, 2021 Board Deliberation Chair Cram moved to revoke Mr. Gray’s Supervisor Certicate and Contractor’s License with the City of Fort Collins and from this date forward Mr. Gray, Gray’s Construction or any company associated with Mr. Richard Gray are hereby prohibited from contracting in the City of Fort Collins. Additionally, I would like to add that all permits associated with Mr. Richard Gray’s Supervisor Certificate and Contractors License are Revoked and will need to be resubmitted by the Company or person holding the proper license with the City of Fort Collins to perform the work. Member Richards seconded. Member Massey expressed concern about safety and how to ensure it. He understood the financing piece but asked if it was reasonable to expect to Mr. Gray spend his own dollars to ensure safety. He had been put in a difficult position. Mr. Massey asked the other members of the Board who were contractors how they would respond. Chair Cram said there were other avenues to get the sites secure. Bering the contractor of record, if someone was injured out there, Mr. Gray would be responsible. Member Massey understood, but asked if the expectation would be to expend your own dollars and physical labor to put the fence up. Member Teplitsky says it was reasonable because regardless of payment, Contractors have responsibility for safety and environmental precautions. He would do that first and deal with payment and his client later. Member Johnson said there was precedent that contractors had to secure the site and leave it in good working order, and the cost would be on the owner. In this instance had Mr. Gray gone to the City in March of 2020 or late 2019 and asked to be removed when funding stopped, it would have been different scenario. He waited until it was a problem to make that request. He acknowledged Mr. Anderson only had so many tools to ensure safety and compliance. Member Massey said there had been lack of supervision to some extent, but revocation seemed a bit too far. He asked if the Board allowed the 45 day suspension to continue, could Mr. Gray use the time to remedy the problems, then the Board could revisit the issue if the work had not been done or if Mr. Gray could not work during the time. Chair Cram pointed out Mr. Gray did not need an additional 45 days because he had made no effort made to secure the site over a long time. The relationship needed to be terminated so the developer could re-start with someone else and file for bankruptcy or whatever he needed to do. If revocation was put off for another month, the Board would be at the same point with Mr. Gray. Member Massey was worried Mr. Gray was the scapegoat and Mr. Houts was the financially responsible individual that was not getting the punishment he deserved. He knew the Board did not have any purview over that, and Chair Cram agreed. Member Teplitsky said the relationship between the developer and the contractor was very messy. He agreed with Member Massey it would be ideal if there was a mechanism where Mr. Gray would lose his right to work on this project but could do work on others in the City. He did not see violations worthy of a revocation, but he agreed with Chair Cram that something needed to change on this project. Mr. Anderson stated the City’s goal was to ensure life safety, not hinder Mr. Gray from earning a living. He only had so many tools and he would take any direction from the Board. Member Richards asked if the Board could remove Mr. Gray from the permit without revoking his license. Mr. Anderson replied that Mr. Gray would have to formally submit that in writing to the Building Department, because he had only made a verbal request. The Building Department would process that if received. Member Richards would be in favor of that action because he felt that Mr. Gray was not ultimately at fault. The motion failed 5-2. At 12:59 pm Member Teplitsky left the meeting, but quorum remained. Chair Cram asked who would put up fencing if the license was revoked. Ms. Schmidt asked if Mr. Gray would not be able to work anywhere in Fort Collins, and Mr. Anderson responded he could not during a suspension. Chair Cram stated Mr. Gray could work during his suspension. He could get hired as a framer under a licensed person and still have an income. Mr. Anderson said that was correct, the Board would only be suspending D his license. Ms. Manno researched in the City system and clarified Mr. Gray only had a D license, as his framing license had expired in 2006.