HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 07/27/2000Council Liaison: Kurt Kastein
Staff Liaison: Felix Lee (221-6760)
I1Chairperson: Charles Fielder II Phone: 484-0117(W), 207-0505(H) II
A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, July 27, 2000, in the Council
Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building, at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins.
Board MEMBERS Present:
Charles Fielder, Thomas Hartmann, Susan Kreul-Froseth, Brad Massey, and John McCoy
Al Hauck and Gene Little
Staff MEMBERS Present:
Felix Lee, Director of Building & Zoning
Delynn Coldiron, staff support to Board
AGENDA:
1. ROLL CALL:
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Fielder and roll taken.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Board Member Massey noted that on Page 2, Paragraph 2, it should reference that Gino Campana
was not a licensed engineer. He made a motion that the minutes be approved as amended. Board
Member Hartmann seconded the motion. The minutes passed unanimously, as amended.
3. CONTRACTOR APPEAL — KAYLE MERL HAWORTH:
Fielder reviewed the procedures that would be used for the hearing.
Felix Lee provided information relative to this appeal. Lee stated that the appellant had applied
for a Class Cl license and was requesting a waiver of the requirement that the appellant must
submit three project verification forms which document supervisory experience on three
completed buildings. Lee stated that according to the appellant's information, the appellant had
a substantial amount of supervision experience but had not had the opportunity to specifically
supervise three projects from start to finish. That appellant was requesting this waiver, according
to Lee, based on the following: (1) the appellant had 30 years of experience in the construction
industry, (2) he had been a licensed architect for 26 of those 30 years where he provided
Building Review Board • •
July 27, 2000
Page 2
professional observation of the construction done, and (3) he had worked for the past almost five
years with a design build contractor where he had opportunity to spend substantial amounts of
time working as part of the construction team providing on -site supervision. Lee directed Board
Members to the additional information that had been provided by the appellant prior to the
meeting. Board Members took a few minutes to review the information that had been provided.
There was a question as to whether the appellant was also requesting a waiver of the exam. Lee
deferred this question to the appellant. Appellant, Merl Haworth, addressed the Board. He
answered that he was only requesting a waiver for the experience and that he was willing to take
the exam
Haworth stated that he was trying to obtain a Class Cl license to enable him to help manage
some upcoming small development projects. He mentioned that he understood the requirements
for licensing and the need to have some verification that people are qualified to do the work they
are performing but that he, unfortunately, did not fit this mold since he had not spent a lot of time
in the field working on projects day-to-day. Haworth reiterated that he had, for approximately
the last five years, worked with a design build contractor where he was the project architect, and,
on a day-to-day basis, was involved in overall project management, estimating and on -site
supervision. He added that he worked with subcontractors to resolve concerns and facilitate
scheduling.
Haworth mentioned that he had worked in Colorado for the last twelve years as a designer on a
variety of projects from small residential projects to large commercial additions and remodels.
He stated that the project verification forms he submitted were representative of fairly complex
projects where he took an active role as the architect working with the field personnel to resolve
problems, etc.
Kreul-Froseth asked Haworth if had taken an architectural licensing exam for the State of
Wyoming. Haworth answered that he took the NCRB exam in 1973. He stated that he is
licensed in Colorado by way of reciprocity.
Fielder stated that Haworth had worked at his firm prior to the time he was hired. Everything
that he had heard about Merl had been positive and he verified that Merl had been very involved
in the construction side of projects.
Kreul-Froseth mentioned that in the past one other architect had come before the Board asking
for a similar waiver. Because the architect had taken a licensing exam, the request was granted.
Board Member McCoy asked for further clarification on the difference between appellant's role
in design -build projects and other projects. Haworth stated that he had a higher level of
responsibility as part of the design -build projects since everyone on the team was responsible for
delivering the project to the owner within the owner's budget and on schedule. He added that on
normal projects he would design the project, put it out for bid, and then show up on the job site
occasionally to see how things were going. For design -build projects, according to Haworth, no
bidding is done. Instead, negotiations are done with subcontractors, design time is spent with the
subcontractors and others providing field services, and he remains involved throughout the entire
construction process. Haworth noted that the design -build arrangement has given his company
the ability to do some amazing things with regard to delivery of projects. He gave an example of
a 100,000 square foot manufacturing plant that was fully constructed in six months from the time
Building Review Board • •
July 27,2000
Page 3
they broke ground, to the time equipment was being set inside
Board Member Massey asked for clarification of the type of construction that is allowed under
the Class C1 license. Lee answered that the Cl license allowed for commercial and/or
residential construction up to 7,500 square feet and/or two stories.
Massey asked appellant if any of his projects had been over one story. Haworth answered that he
worked on a medical office building that was three stories plus a basement; a school which was a
two story tenant finish project; and.a building for a floor company which was a partial two story.
He also referenced a project done for the University of Wyoming which was a two story project.
Hartmann asked appellant if he would be assuming the construction management responsibilities
on projects if he were granted a Cl license, or if he would delegate these responsibilities to
someone else. Haworth answered that he would be ultimately responsible as the license holder.
He stated that he expected that he would be spending a lot of time on the job sites but intended
on bringing in some additional people to help manage more complex projects. Hartmann asked if
he would be responsible for the financial management and other business aspects of projects.
Haworth confirmed this. Hartmann asked if he had been responsible for these types of aspects in
the design -build projects he had done. Haworth confirmed this.
Hartmann made a motion to approve appellant's request based on his experience as an architect
upon successful completion of the City's Class Cl exam. Kreul-Froseth seconded the motion.
Lee asked appellant for more clarification on his on -site supervision experience. Haworth stated
that he did not spend all day, every day on site; however, he stated that it was his responsibility
to work through the management issues at hand with the field superintendent and the
subcontractors when he is on site. He mentioned that he will spend anywhere from one time a
week to two or three times a week on a job site depending on stage of construction. He added
that on one of his previous jobs he was on site four days a week from a couple of hours to a half
a day minimum, working with the owners, field administration, construction manager and other
field personnel. Lee asked appellant if he was actually involved in managing the subtrades and
the site workers. Haworth mentioned that this varied from project to project and that currently he
is responsible, together with the project manager and the field superintendent, for those types of
issues. Lee asked if he was involved in actually scheduling the various trades. Haworth
confirmed this. Lee asked if he was involved in determining whether or not the work done by the
various trades passed code, owner's requirements, etc. Haworth confirmed this.
rX4111
YEAS: McCoy, Hartmann, Fielder, Kreul-Froseth, Massey
NAYS: None
The motion passed unanimously.
4. CONTRACTOR APPEAL — JEFFREY E. WOLF, D/B/A WOLF ROOFING:
Lee stated that this item had been withdrawn.
5. CONTRACTOR HEARING — JAMES LADD, D/B/A ADVANCED PLUMBING:
Building Review Board •
July 27, 2000
Page 4
Lee stated that this contractor had requested a continuance. Fielder asked if the Board could hear
the matter without the respondent in attendance similar to what had been done at the previous
meeting. Lee confirmed this. Fielder asked if the respondent had given any reason as to why he
could not appear. Delynn Coldiron mentioned that the respondent called and mentioned that they
were experiencing a heavy workload and were short employees so he could not appear.
Massey mentioned that one of the reasons the Board heard the issue at their last meeting when
the contractor was not in attendance was due to the fact that the homeowner involved had taken
the time to come and the Board wanted to give him the opportunity to speak. He suggested
delaying this item to the end of the meeting. Fielder agreed to do this.
6. CONTRACTOR HEARING — LANCE LANDRUM AND ADREW SWAN, D/B/A
CLIMATECH HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING:
Fielder reviewed the procedures that would be used for the next hearings.
Lee reviewed the allegations in this case, as follows:
On July 11, 2000, a building inspector issued a Stop Work Order at 1926 Mesaview Lane for the
installation of an air conditioning unit which was being installed by Climatech Heating & Air
Conditioning without a permit.
On July 13, 2000, a second Stop Work Order was issued at 1544 Faraday for the relocation of an
air conditioning unit without a permit. The homeowner in this case maintained that the initial
installation had been completed by Climatech two weeks prior to that, again without having a
permit.
Lee stated that the Board may recall that this contractor, approximately 8 months ago, had
appeared before the Board for similar issues. At that time, according to Lee, the Board
determined that the contractor had failed to obtain required permits for the work that was done,
but found no evidence that the violations were willful or deliberate. It was determined that a
letter of reprimand be issued, a copy of which was included in Board packets.
Lee mentioned that based on these allegations, staff believed that the following violations may
have occurred:
Willful and deliberate disregard of the building code or any other code
adopted by the City related to the specific project under the responsibility of the
license holder,
Failure to comply with a provision of the code related to a specific
construction project under the responsibility of the license holder; and
Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be
performed.
Respondents, Lance Landrum and Andrew Swan, addressed the Board. Landrum mentioned that
there were different circumstances surrounding each of the instances that had been alleged. He
Building Review Board • •
July 27,2000
Page 5
stated that for the job at 1544 Faraday, the initial installation occurred at a time when their office
manager, who usually obtains the building permits, was on vacation. According to Landrum, this
job was simply missed and was in no way willful or deliberate. The temporary employee that
had been hired during the time that the office manager was gone stated that the office manager
had obtained permits for all of the jobs that were scheduled prior to leaving on vacation.
However, she stated that she was not familiar with the permit process and that when this new job
was scheduled, obtaining the permit was missed.
Landrum mentioned that for 1926 Mesa View a permit application had been faxed to the building
department prior to the installation. According to Landrum, building department staff told his
office that they were behind and that the permit would not be available until the following
afternoon. Landrum stated that a building inspector issued the Stop Work Order on the morning
of the installation and that he then went to the building department personally to obtain the
building permit. While at the building department, Landrum relayed that he spoke with Ron
Carroll who was able to find the application and verify that it had been faxed to the building
department before the installation was done and that the building permit had not yet been issued.
According to Landrum, Ron excused the double fee and a permit was issued for the work that
was done.
Landrum stated that his company had obtained 171 permits in the City of Fort Collins during the
past year. He hoped that this would demonstrate that they strive to follow the rules. According
to Landrum, his company's policies have again been strengthened to prevent this from happening
again. He mentioned that a memo was given to all of his employees, including office staff,
stating that no job can be started prior to the time that an actual permit is in their job work order
file. If no permit is present, the employees have been instructed to immediately call the office so
that a permit can be obtained. All employees, according to Landrum, signed a copy of the letter
and this was filed in each employee's personnel file.
Lee asked if Landrum's office manager was gone when both instances occurred. Landrum
answered that she was not gone on the Mesa Verde job and stated that she had followed
procedures by applying for the permit.
Lee asked for further clarification on the Faraday job. Landrum confirmed that the initial
installation was done two weeks prior to a permit being obtained due to the temporary staffing
situation. He stated that the customer in this case requested that the unit be relocated and, that
his service person was not aware that an initial permit was not obtained or that a new permit was
necessary to relocate the unit.
Lee asked for some additional clarification on Landrum's dealings with building department staff
on the Mesa Verde project. Landrum reiterated that building department staff told his office
when they called, after the application had been faxed, not to even bother to pick up the permit
until the next day due to backlog. Lee asked Landrum if they proceeded with the installation
without having a permit. Landrum confirmed this and stated that the permit application was
included in the job work order file for the installer. According to Landrum, it was his intent to
pick up the permit later that afternoon and deliver it to the homeowner so that they could call for
an inspection. Lee asked Landrum if this was not possible due to the backlog in the building
department. Landrum answered that he was able to obtain the permit the next afternoon when he
personally went to the office. He stated that the front counter staff stopped what they were doing
and produced the permit when requested.
Building Review Board • •
July 27, 2000
Page 6
Lee asked Landrum if he paid a penalty fee on either of the jobs described. Landrum answered
that they were only required to pay additional fees on the Faraday job. Lee asked Landrum how
he would respond given the same circumstances. Landrum answered that the purpose of the
memorandum that was given to each employee was to prevent this situation from recurring. All
of his employees have been instructed not to start any job without having the actual permit.
Lee asked Landrum about the policy changes that he put into place after his first appearance
before the Board. Landrum stated that the changes were not formally put into writing and
employees were not required to sign anything. Landrum mentioned that the memo will also be
placed into the employee handbook that is given to all new employees so that at times when the
company experiences turnover, the process will not break down.
Lee asked Landrum for clarification on the follow up that was done by his company to assure
quality control following installations. Landrum answered that the installers are given a
checklist that they must go through to do a thorough check of the system when they start it up.
This is followed by the installer instructing the customer on maintenance and operation of the
system. Lee asked if either Landrum or Swan perform field inspections. Swan answered that he
occasionally does field inspections.
As a closing statement, Landrum reiterated that his company had obtained 171 permits this year
and confirmed that obtaining permits is a company procedure that is followed. It was his opinion
that his company was not at fault in one of the two instances that had been noted. He stated that
his company had followed procedure, applied for the permit, etc. The permit was simply not
produced in time. He noted that the Faraday project was the fault of his company. According to
Landrum, the new policies that he has put into place are fairly foolproof. Not obtaining a permit
prior to doing work at his company is now a serious offense and is grounds for termination.
Lee closed by stating that for this type of permit, an over-the-counter permit, if someone actually
appeared at the counter, staff would always endeavor to issue the permit. He stated that if
someone called, they may in fact be told that the application had not yet been processed.
However, if they were to show up in person, staff would always try to accommodate the
customer's needs and issue the permit. Lee added that a permit not being issued when desired is
not an excuse for a contractor to continue with an installation and that it is the responsibility of
the contractor to abide by the City's requirements.
Massey asked Landrum why, if building department staff had notified them that a building
permit would not be ready until the next day, they went ahead with the installation. Landrum
confirmed that they did go ahead with the work and reiterated that a copy of the permit
application was included in the installer's file so that if a building inspector did inquire, they
would have proof that a permit had been applied for.
Kreul-Froseth asked Landrum if the memorandum that his employees are now required to sign
reflects the fact that not obtaining a permit is grounds for termination. Landrum stated that the
memorandum does not reflect this.
Fielder stated that it appeared that some policies have been put into place by Landrum that will
have some meaning and impact. He noted that it was his recollection that a second letter of
reprimand was issued to a separate contractor who had come before the Board more than once
Building Review Board •
July 27, 2000
Page 7
for similar circumstances and who had also implemented additional policies to keep the situation
from recurring.
Massey stated that when a company obtains 171 permits, not all jobs are going to be flawless.
His concern was the fact that this contractor proceeded to do work after he understood that a
permit could not be obtained until the next day. It was Massey's opinion that the Board made it
pretty clear at the last hearing that submitting a permit application is not sufficient.
Massey made a motion of finding of fact as follows:
That Lance Landrum and Andrew Swan, d/b/a Climatech Heating & Air Conditioning were in
violation of the following City licensing regulation:
6. Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be
performed.
Fielder seconded the motion.
McCoy asked for clarification on the motion. Massey provided clarification.
VOTE:
YEAS: McCoy, Hartmann, Fielder, Kreul-Froseth, Massey
NAYS: None.
The motion passed unanimously.
Kreul-Froseth stated that she applauded Landrum's determination to get employees to notice the
company policy. She added that she saw some discrepancy in Landrum's statement that working
without a permit was grounds for termination but that this language was not included on the
document that was actually signed by employees.
Landrum stated that he never wanted to be in this situation again. He stated that although
language regarding termination had not been put in writing, it had certainly been implied,
especially amongst the office staff. He added that he will most likely rewrite the memo to
include some language indicating this.
McCoy asked for clarification on what would happen should this situation happen again. Lee
answered that it would depend on the situation. Fielder stated that it had been his experience that
the building department shows some leniency in these instances and does not bring a contractor
to the Board unless there are multiple occurrences. Lee added that on first offense, the contractor
usually receives a letter noting the violation and warning them that further violations may result
in an appearance before the Board.
Fielder made a motion to place a second letter of reprimand in this contractor's file and stated
that further violations would result in the Board taking more severe action against this license.
Massey seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Building Review Board • •
July 27, 2000
Page 8
YEAS: McCoy, Hartmann, Fielder, Kreul-Froseth, Massey
NAYS: None
The motion passed unanimously.
CONTRACTOR HEARING — MERLYN GRAHAM, DB/A GRAHAM ROOFING, INC.:
Lee reviewed the allegations in this case, as follows:
On June 30, 1999, a Stop Work Order was issued for work being done by Graham Roofing at 618
Cherry Street without a permit. A follow up letter was sent to Mr. Graham on July 1, 1999,
noting the violation and informing him that further violations could result in a hearing before the
Board.
On February 27, 2000, Mr. Graham's license expired as part of the annual license expiration
process. Lee noted that building department staff sends out notification in advance of the actual
expiration to the last address of record. Staff did not receive renewal information within the 90
day grace period allowed by the ordinance and the license was placed on inactive status.
On July 11, 2000, a permit was issued to the homeowner at 707 Winchester Drive for roofing
work that had already been completed by Graham Roofing. The date of the customer's invoice
was May 16, 2000. This installation was done without a valid license and without a permit.
On July 12, 2000, a permit was issued to the homeowner at 700 Powderhom Drive for roofing
work that had already been completed by Graham Roofing. This job was also done without an
appropriate license or permit.
Lee noted that Mr. Graham applied to reinstate his license in early July, 2000.
Based on these allegations, Lee stated that staff believed that the following violations may have
occurred:
(1). Willful and deliberate disregard of the building code or any other code adopted by the
City related to the specific project under the responsibility of the license holder,
(2). Failure to comply with a provision of the code related to a specific construction project
under the responsibility of the license holder,
(6). Failure to obtain any permit required for the work to be performed; and
(8). Performance of work for which a license or supervisor certificate is required without a
valid, current license or supervisor certificate.
Respondent, Merlyn Graham, addressed the Board. He stated that for the job on Cherry Street, it
was his understanding that the customer had obtained the permit since the customer had already
tom off the old roof and installed new plywood.
Graham stated that for the jobs on Winchester and Powderhorn he had simply forgotten to renew
Building Review Board
July 27, 2000
Page 9
his license.
Lee asked Graham why he had not obtained permits for the jobs that were done on Winchester
and Powderhom. Graham answered that he got hurt in March when he fell through a roof and
had not been back to work since. He stated that his dad had been taking care of the business for
him and was instructing homeowners to obtain their own permits.
Lee asked Graham if he was involved in either of these two jobs. Graham answered that he
personally was not involved and that his dad had been taking care of this. Lee asked Graham if it
was his understanding that the homeowners would be obtaining their own permits. Graham
confirmed this. Lee asked Graham if he was unaware that his licensed had expired. Graham
answered no, he simply forgot about it.
As a closing statement, Graham stated that he was sorry about the violations that had occurred
and reiterated that he had simply forgotten to renew his license.
Lee closed by stating that irrespective of the fact that this contractor's license had expired, it was
still the contractor's responsibility to know that a permit had been obtained and was on the job
prior to starting work.
Kreul-Froseth asked if these were the first known series of violations for Graham Roofing. Lee
answered that there are no other infractions of this nature on record for this contractor. Kreul-
Froseth asked Graham how long he had maintained a license in the City of Fort Collins. Graham
answered that he had had license for approximately 25 years.
Massey stated that the Board had been through the scenario many times where homeowners were
supposed to have obtained permits. He asked Graham what he intended to do in the future to
assure that permits had been obtained prior to doing work. Graham stated that he intended to
personally obtain the permits.
Building Review Board • •
July 27, 2000
Page 10
Fielder made a motion of finding of fact as follows:
That Merlyn Graham, d/b/a Graham Roofing, was in violation of the following City licensing
regulations:
(6) Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be performed;
and
(6) Performance of work for which a license or supervisor certificate is required
without a valid, current license or supervisor certificate.
Hartmann seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Yeas: McCoy, Hartmann, Fielder, Kreul-Froseth, Massey
Nays: None
The motion passed unanimously.
Kreul-Froseth stated that because Graham Roofing had not had a any prior violations before this
series of violations, and because he had had a license in excess of 20 years, it was her suggestion
that a letter of reprimand might be appropriate in this case. She made a motion that a letter of
reprimand be placed in this contractor's file noting the violations and stating that further
violations would result in more serious action from the Board.
Fielder seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Yeas: McCoy, Hartmann, Fielder, Kreul-Froseth, Massey
Nays: None.
The motion passed unanimously.
6. CONTRACTOR HEARING — JAMES LADD, D/B/A ADVANCED PLUMBING:
Since the Respondent was ultimately able to appear at the meeting, this item was heard by the
Board as originally planned.
Lee reviewed the allegations in this case, as follows:
On October 21, 1999, a Stop Work Order was issued for work being done by Advanced
Plumbing at 1000 Belvedere Court. None of the plumbing employees on the job site could
produce a valid State plumbing license. A letter noting the violation was sent to Advanced
Plumbing on November 15, 2000, informing them that further violations could result in a hearing
before the Board.
On May 23, 2000, a second Stop Work Order was issued for work being done by Advanced
Building Review Board • •
July 27, 2000
Page 11
Plumbing at 1226 St. John Place because the plumber on site could not produce a valid Colorado
plumbing license. A second letter was sent reiterating the violation and informing the contractor
of the consequences.
On June 15, 2000, a third Stop Work Order was issued for work being done by Advanced
Plumbing at 215 Cleopatra. Again, none of the plumbers on the job site could produce a valid
state plumbing license.
Lee mentioned that based on these allegations, staff believed that the following violation to
Section 15-306 of the City Code may have occurred:
(4) Failure to provide supervision and maintain licenses as required by the state
Examining Board of Plumbers for all apprentice and journeyman plumbers.
Respondent, Jim Ladd, addressed the Board. He stated that he employs 60 people and that they
provide plumbing work on approximately 600 houses per year. It was his opinion that the
violations that had occurred were done innocently and were not in any way willful.
Ladd stated that on 1000 Belvedere, the plumber on the job site had a valid journeyman's license
at the time he did this work. Ladd mentioned that the plumber was required to turn in his
journeyman's permit a few days prior to this job at the time he took his journeyman's test and
had not yet received his license. This was the reason, according to Ladd, that the employee did
not have valid identification to show to the inspector even though he was a valid journeyman.
Ladd stated that on 1226 St. John Place, an apprentice employee was not installing plumbing
work, but was simply checking on a test of the underground plumbing. The master plumber for
this job was on another site nearby. According to Ladd, the apprentice employee had a valid
registration card.
Ladd stated that on 215 Cleopatra, valid licenses were able to be produced but that the inspector
failed to acknowledge this.
Lee asked Ladd for more clarification on the job done on Belvedere. Ladd answered that the
plumber on site was had a temporary license from the state to work as a journeyman since he had
passed the first part of his journeyman's test. At the time he took the second part of his test,
Ladd reiterated that the state kept his journeyman permit card until such time that he was issued
his actual journeyman's license. Lee asked for clarification on whether an employee is actually
certified until they pass their tests. Ladd answered that the employees are considered certified
until such time that they fail a test, at which time they would not be issued any further
journeyman permits. Ladd added that there are two types of permits — an apprentice permit and a
temporary journeyman permit which indicates that the plumber is qualified to take the
examination based on adequate experience.
Lee asked Ladd for more clarification on the job done on St. John Place. Ladd stated that the
employee on the site was an apprentice plumber. He added that this employee did not install the
underground plumbing, but was simply pumping air into the system so that it could be inspected.
Lee asked if this employee was doing actual plumbing installation work. Ladd stated that he was
not doing any installation work.
Building Review Board •
July 27, 2000
Page 12
Lee asked Ladd for more clarification on the job done on Cleopatra. Ladd stated that this
situation was similar to the job on Belvedere where again the employees could not produce cards
because they were collected at the time they took their tests. Ladd added that on the following
day, the same employees did have their cards available on site.
Lee asked if Ladd had had any discussion with the State on any of the alleged violations. Ladd
answered that he was told by the State that they would keep all of the information on file that
they had received from the building department, but that no disciplinary action would be taken.
Lee closed by stating that staff has to rely on the State licensed employees carrying their
identification or there is no way to regulate the State's requirements. He added that if they are,
in fact, qualified employees, then they are responsible for carrying identification when they are
working.
Ladd closed by stating that he does his best to assure that appropriate licensed employees are on
his job sites. He added that his company has had no plumbing code violations that have
endangered public health and it was his opinion that this was the purpose of the licensing
regulations.
Massey asked for clarification on how a journeyman can be considered licensed prior to taking
the test. Ladd answered that they are given a permit to practice as a licensed journeyman during
the process of taking the tests. The first test must be passed in order for a journeyman employee
to maintain the permit and then, once they pass the second test, they are given an actual
journeyman's license. He added that should the journeyman fail one of the tests, he loses the
journeyman permit and reverts back to an apprentice card.
McCoy asked for clarification on the City's licensing practices related to plumbers. Lee
provided clarification.
Massey asked for clarification on whether the testing that was done by the apprentice employee
constituted plumbing work. Lee answered that testing would not be considered plumbing work
but Lee added that he was unsure whether the inspector witnessed something other than just
testing at that job site.
Kreul-Froseth asked if the biggest concern in these cases was that the employees on the job site
had inadequate identification with them. Lee confirmed this. Kreul-Froseth asked Ladd if he
had any kind of policy at his company regarding the identification that must be carried, etc. Ladd
answered that he encourages all of his employees to advance as much as possible and that he
teaches them about the required licensing, etc.
Fielder asked Ladd how many permits his company obtains in Fort Collins. Ladd answered that
his company obtains very few permits since most of the permits are already obtained by the
general contractors they are working for.
Hartmann asked Ladd if he could implement a procedure in his company that would keep this
from becoming an ongoing issue. Ladd answered that this is a pretty straightforward issue and
that most of the employees he hires are licensed. He added that he tries to assure that there is
adequate supervision on all of the job sites; however, there are things that happen, i.e., illness
and family emergencies, that sometimes leave job sites without the appropriate level of licensing.
Building Review Board • •
July 27, 2000
Page 13
Ladd mentioned that most of the employees he hires have over three years experience and know
what they are doing. According to Ladd, a plumber, with or without a license, would not be able
to correctly install a system that passes inspections if they did not know what they were doing.
He stated that his company's work routinely passes inspections. Ladd acknowledged the State
requirements regarding required supervision and stated that his company has an even number of
journeymen and master plumbers to accommodate the number of apprentice employees that are
employed. He was unsure what else they could do to try to assure compliance.
Building Review Board • •
July 27, 2000
Page 14
Fielder made a motion of finding of fact as follows:
That James Ladd, d/b/a Advanced Plumbing, was in violation to the following City licensing
regulations:
(4) Providing supervision and maintaining licenses as required by the state
Examining Board of Plumbers for all apprentice and journeyman plumbers.
Massey seconded the motion.
Hartmann stated that the only thing he was unsure about with the motion was the question of
supervision. It was his opinion that the issue of maintaining the licenses was the item in question
in this case. Hartmann added that there was no confirmation that inadequate supervision had
occurred, but thought it would be appropriate for Ladd to produce the licenses of the journeyman
plumbers that were on the job sites that had been referenced in this case. He asked that Ladd
forward copies of such licenses and that the copies be made a part of the record of this hearing.
Hartmann suggested a friendly amendment to the motion that the language be changed to refer
only to a failure to maintain licenses as required by the state Examining Board of Plumbers.
Fielder asked Lee if this was acceptable. Lee stated that this would be acceptable.
Fielder amended his motion to read as follows:
That James Ladd, d/b/a Advanced Plumbing, was in violation of the following City licensing
regulation:
(4) Maintaining licenses as required by the state Examining Board of Plumbers for
all apprentice and journeyman plumbers.
Massey stated that on the St. John Place project, the work was stopped, according to the Stop
Work Order, for no licensed plumber on site for underground plumbing installation. He
mentioned that although Ladd stated that the employee was only testing, this cannot be
confirmed since the inspector is not present for testimony. It was Massey's opinion that this
could fall under the failure to provide adequate supervision.
Fielder stated that since this is a first time offense for this company, he wanted to give them the
benefit of the doubt.
VOTE:
Yeas: McCoy, Hartmann, Fielder, Kreul-Froseth, Massey
Nays: None
The motion passed unanimously.
Kreul-Froseth made a motion that a letter of reprimand be placed in this contractor's file which
notes the violation and that it include a note from the Board stating that it is strongly
recommended that the contractor's company develop some sort of written policy regarding
employees having adequate identification available on a job site.
Building Review Board • •
July 27, 2000
Page 15
Massey seconded the motion.
Building Review Board • •
July 27, 2000
Page 16
VOTE:
Yeas: McCoy, Hartmann, Fielder, Kreul-Froseth, Massey
Nays: None
The motion passed unanimously.
6. OTHER BUSINESS:
Lee provided an update on contractor licensing revision efforts. He noted that the task group
would be meeting again on Thursday, August 3, 2000, at 281 N. College Avenue, at 6:00 p.m.
He invited Board members who were interested in attending to come.
Lee stated that the prior meeting had been somewhat contentious around the issue of employee
identification. He mentioned that he has now proposed an option of registering and identifying
exempt workers, without requiring them to be licensed, as long as they are working exclusively
under the supervision of a license holder. This item, according to Lee, will be one of the issues
discussed on August 3rd.
Massey asked for clarification on what this proposal would mean to the Bob Campbell situation
that the Board heard earlier in the year. Lee answered that the proposal would allow Campbell to
hire and utilize unlicensed workers as long as they were registered with the building department
and as long as those workers were under the direct supervision of a licensed supervisor. Massey
asked if this meant that Campbell could hire one licensed framing contractor to oversee 200
piece meal workers. Lee confirmed that this would be allowed as long as the workers were
working exclusively for that licensed framing contractor.
Meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m.
RI