HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 10/26/2000A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, October 26, 2000, in the Council
Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building, at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Charles Fielder, Al Hauck, Susan Kreul-Froseth, Gene Little, Brad Massey, and John McCoy
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Thomas Hartmann
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 Hauck made a motion that the minutes from the July 27, 2000 meeting be
approved as submitted. Board Member McCoy seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously.
3. CONTRACTOR APPEAL — DAVID BALTZ, DB/A D & R FRAMING CONTRACTORS:
Fielder reviewed the procedures that would be used for the hearing.
Felix Lee provided information relative to this appeal. He stated that the appellant was requesting
a blanket waiver from the exam requirements for all of the framing subcontractors that he
intended to use on his Fort Collins project. Lee mentioned that the appellant's information noted
that many of the crews he intends on using are not well versed in English and, while they may be
very qualified to do the framing work, they do not have sufficient skill in the English language to
pass a written exam. The information also explained that because the UBC book and the exam
study guide are not available in Spanish it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the crews to
. prepare for the exam. Lee added that, according to the appellant's information, the crews would
fulfill all of the remaining licensing requirements, including providing proof of insurance,
verification of experience, paying all applicable fees, etc., and would be working under the direct
supervision of D & R.
Building Review Board
October 26, 2000
Page 2
Lee stated that one of the provisions of the proposed licensing changes allows licensed specialty
trade contractors to utilize subcontractors who are not licensed provided that the work is
continuously supervised by the licensed specialty trade contractor. He added that based on the
current schedule, should the proposed revisions be approved by the Board and by City Council,
these changes would take affect around the first of the year.
As a side note, Lee mentioned that the department had done some work in attempting to meet the
needs of individuals whose first language was not English. He stated that staff had, in the past,
allowed interpreters to accompany examinees, and that staff is awaiting a Spanish copy of the
UBC. Lee noted that tests are not yet available in languages other than English and that attempts
to convert this information through translation software had been unsuccessful. Lee added that
the City had two candidates who were able to eventually pass their exam with the help of an
interpreter and had since obtained framing licenses.
Appellant, David Baltz, addressed the Board. He stated that the background information that was
presented was a fair assessment of the problem. He added that his company, too, has had
difficulty with translation software, particularly with the building code since the associated
vocabulary is not readily translated into other languages. Baltz mentioned that this issue is one of
the difficulties his company has had in trying to assist ethnic crews with their paperwork. Baltz
stated that his company requires an extensive amount of information from each crew, including
proof of liability insurance, worker's compensation coverage for employees, and a registered
trade name.
Baltz stated that his company currently has two supervisors who acquired supervisor certificates
from the City. He added that he has a third supervisor, who is bilingual, who is now studying for
the exam and intends to attempt to get his certificate sometime in November. Baltz hoped that
this person would be instrumental in assisting the ethnic crews in their preparation for exams,
completing their paperwork, etc. Appellant mentioned that he was informed, by staff, that
interpreters were allowed but, after exploring this option, was not able to find anyone who
provided this type of service. He noted that because of the specialized nature of the translation
that would be involved in the exam process, someone familiar with the building industry and the
building code would be required which begs the question of which person actually ends up taking
the exam — the applicant or the interpreter.
Baltz concluded by stating that his application was initially submitted in September, which
somewhat dated the information in his request since scheduling changes eliminated September's
meeting and he was unaware of the proposed licensing changes that were being considered at the
time the information was submitted. Based on this, Baltz stated that his request was now for a
temporary exam waiver until such time that the proposed licensing changes were adopted.
Board Member Hauck asked appellant if he had any jobs pending in Fort Collins that would be
starting prior to the first of the year. Appellant confirmed this. Baltz mentioned that his company
intends to utilize local crews and that they had been advertising in the Coloradoan. However,
according to Baltz, he had had no one seriously inquire about the work.
Massey asked if there was a UBC book available in Spanish. Lee answered that according to the
ICBO literature, there is a UBC edition in Spanish, which the department has ordered, but has not
yet been received. Massey asked about whether the study material was provided as a courtesy.
Lee confirmed this.
Massey asked appellant if the building plans were drafted in Spanish. Appellant answered that
plans are not drafted in Spanish and that often times the information is conveyed through the
blueprint pictures themselves. He added that the requirements and other pertinent information are
Building Review Board • •
October 26, 2000
Page 3
• mostly numerical which are not affected by language barriers. Appellant mentioned that most of
the crew members have no trouble reading blueprints and company supervisors assist with the
interpretation of framing notes, etc., which are not written in Spanish. Massey stated that the
appellant's situation might be better suited for what is being proposed in the licensing revisions
where more qualified supervisors are developed versus allowing each framing subcontractor in
this case to obtain their own license which would give them the freedom to frame buildings
outside of the supervision given to them by appellant's company and without the same level of
input helping them translate information into Spanish, etc. Baltz answered that it was not his
intent to unleash unqualified framers into the industry and clarified that his request is that these
crews be licensed to work under his supervisors on their particular job sites and not necessarily
out on someone else's job sites. He suggested that perhaps some kind of registration card could
be issued to them, similar to the employee cards, in lieu of an actual license.
McCoy asked appellant if his supervisors were employees of D & R. Baltz confirmed this.
McCoy asked for clarification on whether the crews the appellant intended to hire would be
employees or subcontractors. Baltz answered that they would be subcontractors. McCoy asked if
appellant intended on using crews that he had used in other municipalities. Baltz answered that
he intends to utilize local crews if at all possible due to the difficulty of getting workers to show
up if they are required to travel long distances. He mentioned that in the interim, they would
probably have to rely on several out-of-town crews until they had developed a local work force.
Baltz reiterated that they have had no response from local contractors for their project.
Hauck asked appellant if he understood that under current regulations the crew members could be
hired by D & R as direct employees and would be allowed to work on the project. Baltz
confirmed that he understood this and stated that projects become economically not viable at the
point that the company has to pick up the cost of worker's compensation insurance, etc., for these
crews versus hiring the crews as subcontractors where they are responsible for bearing their own
costs. Hauck asked for clarification on why, if the subcontractors are providing their own
worker's compensation protection, the net costs would not be the same whether they were
working as employees or not. Baltz answered that worker's compensation rates are based on
accident modifiers and for new contractors, who have no history, their rates are lower as long as
they keep their accident rate down compared to what D & R would have to pay based on their
history. Hauck stated that he is concerned with the large number of workers in the field that are
working as piece workers, cash employees, etc., as a way to avoid the requirements of worker's
compensation, since the people who end up losing in this situation, are the unprotected workers
who get hurt and are no longer employed and/or employable due to an accident. Hauck added
that this is one reason that he would have trouble supporting the appellant's request. Appellant
mentioned that it is state law that employees must be covered by worker's compensation
insurance. He added that D & R requires all of their subcontractors to have either their own
worker's compensation policy or to provide payroll information for their employees so that their
workers can be protected under D & R's worker's compensation policy.
Massey mentioned that the Board heard and denied a similar case earlier this year where the
appellant could not find sufficient workers due to the fact that there was so much work available
that the subcontractors were unwilling to go through the process to obtain licenses. He stated that
the issue in this case seemed to be whether or not the language barrier for ethnic crews was a
legitimate reason for granting appellant's request. Massey noted that the City provides study
materials as a courtesy and that all of the contracts, construction drawings, construction
• specifications, etc., are written in English. It was his opinion that if someone was expected to
read and build from plans that are written in English, then they should be able to pass a test
written in English. He added that allowing an interpreter to assist an examinee was sufficient to
try to accommodate the language barrier issue.
Building Review Board
October 26, 2000
Page 4
Kreul-Froseth asked if any efforts had been made to translate the exams into Spanish. Lee
answered that staff had tried to do this unsuccessfully with translation software and that no one
had been retained to actually translate the tests by hand. Baltz stated that there is no translation
for much of the language that is involved in construction in general and, specifically the UBC.
He added that it is a valid expectation that the workers who are here be at least functional in
English, etc., however, noted that the reality of the situation is that the pace of construction is so
high along the Front Range that finding qualified help is difficult.
Baltz mentioned that when his company requests a framing inspection, the inspector will be
dealing with staff from D & R, not the subcontractor crews who framed the structure. He added
that D & R would be responsible for resolving any issues.
Massey stated that he thought the City was moving in the right direction with the proposed
licensing revisions where specialty contractors would be allowed to utilize non -licensed crews
that were under the supervision of a qualified certificate holder. However, he did not feel that
this was the issue of appellant's request but rather whether or not ethnic crews should be allowed
a blanket exemption from the exam requirements due to the language barrier. He was not
supportive of the request.
Little stated that one of the issues that was discussed during the similar request that was heard
earlier in the year was the fact that the City's requirements did not take into account the realities
of labor shortages along the Front Range and prohibited contractors from submitting competitive
bids. He added that the proposed licensing revisions attempt to address this issue. Little
mentioned that he had no problem authorizing a temporary approval of appellant's request until
the time that Council approved the proposed licensing changes based on D & R's demonstrated
level of success with utilizing unlicensed framing crews.
Massey asked if Little was suggesting temporary approval of actual framing licenses for D & R's
subcrews or some kind of supervisory role that D & R would fulfill until the time that the new
regulations were approved. Massey reiterated that D & R was requesting a waiver of the exam
requirements so that each crew could obtain a license. He was concerned that if the appellant's
request was granted, the license would enable these framing crews to work on projects outside of
D & R with no interpretation of framing notes, plans, etc. Baltz stated that if the City were to
grant these crews identification cards, similar to employee cards, the City would receive
notification if the individuals were no longer working for D & R. Little stated that the direction
the City is headed with regards to the framing license is that there will no longer be licensing or
registration requirements for workers on a job site as long as they are being properly supervised
by a qualified certificate holder of the licensed specialty contractor for whom they work. He
added that we have to face the reality of the limited labor market that is available to get projects
done. Little mentioned that D & R is asking for, on a temporary basis, a situation that fits the
direction the City is headed based on the changes being proposed to the licensing ordinance.
Massey agreed with the direction that the City was headed, but did not agree that this was what
the appellant was requesting.
Massey mentioned that should the Board grant some sort of temporary approval, a time limit
should be considered in case the licensing revisions were rejected by City Council. Little stated
that he thought the Board would have to revisit any waiver that was granted based on the
direction the City was headed with the proposed licensing revisions should that happen.
Massey stated that many applicants had come before the Board asking for waivers from the exam
requirements and the Board had to make determinations on what constituted a valid hardship that
would enable the Board to grant such a request. He added that designs and code requirements are
very technical and that few untrained people would be able to pick up the UBC book and read and
Building Review Board • •
October 26, 2000
Page 5
understand it. Massey mentioned that just because someone had done something for 25 years, did
not necessarily mean that that person was doing the work right. He noted as an example that the
exiting requirements set out in the 1994 code were completely reversed in the 1997 code. The
fact that someone had been doing work for 25 years would not make any difference if they had
not kept up to date on applicable codes.
Hauck mentioned that he would not be supporting appellant's request. It was his opinion that a
waiver should be granted when there is an undue hardship placed on an individual. He stated that
all of the individuals who are building in Fort Collins are required to meet the same requirements,
and, therefore, the hardship noted is not specific to only one contractor. To grant a waiver for one
contractor, according to Hauck, in the face of having turned down similar requests for other
contractors, is not appropriate. Hauck noted that there are currently two alternatives available for
framing contractors and it was his feeling that since the City is in the midst of considering
additional alternatives, he would be opposed at this time to granting the requested waiver.
Fielder stated that one other issue that had been discussed at the similar request heard earlier by
the Board was the fact that two supervisors would be responsible for 100+ workers. He added
that there was nothing in place to keep this from happening on this project should the requested
waiver be approved. Baltz stated that his company can runup to 300 total crews at various times
when they are in full production in the summer and that he has ten supervisors, each of which are
responsible for up to 35 crews. He added that D & R has a proven track record of keeping the
quality of construction at an appropriate level while operating in this manner. He also mentioned
that although many of the workers would not be able to quote egress requirements, this is really
not necessary since the requirements are set out on the blueprints.
ishad
reiterated that at the time he submitted his original request, he was not aware that the City
had pending licensing changes. In hindsight, according to Baltz, he felt he should have
withdrawn his original information and resubmitted information that more accurately reflected
their actual request. He stated that his company was not seeking to get around the City's
requirements to have workers licensed. The true issue, according to Baltz, was to help the
citizens of Fort Collins in utilizing a very scarce resource, qualified and licensed workers, in a
way that does not adversely affect the bottom line cost of homes. Baltz stated that he was more
than willing to provide documentation on the experience of the various crews and to pay all of the
related licensing fees. He added that that he had no objection to having workers take the exam
and was trying to do this in a step by step manner. He hoped that by getting his bilingual
supervisor certified that this would help to expedite his company's ability to license other ethnic
crews. In the short term, however, Baltz mentioned that the lack of available, qualified labor
would cause needless delays on his project which translated directly into added expense for the
consumer.
Little asked appellant if his supervisors were continuously on site for each job they were
responsible for. Baltz answered that this is true for the most part and added that there are
occasions when they have to leave the site for various reasons. Little mentioned that continuous
supervision is one of the requirements of the proposed licensing revisions. Baltz mentioned that
he understood this and thought this was a very reasonable requirement.
Kreul-Froseth mentioned that she was having some trouble with the fact that a blanket waiver
was being requested for all framing subcontractors that D & R intended to use on their Fort
Collins project. She stated that she thought there might be a hardship for ethnic crews who are
not well versed in English. However, it was her opinion that because the request was a blanket
waiver for all framing subcontractors that this restricted the Board's ability to find a hardship in
this case. Baltz stated that he had perhaps used a poor choice of words and that the intent was to
simply expedite the process by not having to submit applications and come before the Board on a
Building Review Board
October 26, 2000
Page 6
monthly basis for approval of exam waivers for additional crews. He mentioned that almost all
crews that are available to his company and the construction industry in general are workers who
have a limited command of the English language. He added that there are very few Anglo
workers in any of the trades at this point and, although much is being done to encourage
America's youth to get involved in the construction industry, they are simply not responding.
Lee asked for clarification on the number of exam waivers the appellant was requesting. Baltz
answered that at this point, based on the contracts that have been awarded to his company,
production is very low. He anticipated that his current needs would be three to maybe five exam
waivers at the most. Lee asked how Baltz, should the Board approve his request, planned to
submit applications, etc., and how the Board would know for sure that a legitimate hardship
existed for each applicant. Baltz answered that his company would be more than willing to go
through the same application process that any other contractor was required to follow, including
submitting the application, project verification forms, etc. He reiterated that the only thing they
were requesting was a waiver of the exam requirement due to the language barrier. Baltz was
unsure how he would go about proving that the applicant was deficient in English. He stated that
he personally knows some of the crew members and is aware of issues regarding the language
barrier based on his experience with trying to communicate with them.
Lee asked if the prospective applicants would be aware of the fact that any actual employees of
their company would have to be covered by worker's compensation and registered with the
building department. Baltz confirmed this. Lee pointed out that under the current licensing
regulations any workers who were not actual employees would be required to have an appropriate
license. Baltz confirmed that he understood this.
Lee asked if there were any meeting participants who wished to speak on this issue. Chris
O'Brien, owner of Front Range Framing Contractors, addressed the Board. He stated that he had
been involved in a lot of discussion regarding the issue of exempt workers over the past several
months and that he personally had an ethical problem with this concept. He added that he had
come to realize that the City may not be the appropriate entity to regulate the loop hole that
currently exists that allows piece meal and other workers to work without any type of worker's
compensation or disability coverage since this is a State regulation, and that the next step towards
addressing this issue was to meet with state representatives. O'Brien stated that his biggest
concern with the issue has always been the life and safety issues involved with unprotected
workers. He added that according to state law, a proprietor, partner or owner of a company can
exempt themselves from worker's compensation requirements leaving themselves unprotected.
According to O'Brien, if one of these workers should fall off a roof and become permanently
disabled and is not covered by worker's comp or any other type of disability insurance, it is
highly unlikely that the worker's medical bills would be covered or that they would be provided
for by the company they had subcontracted with. O'Brien stated that this type of arrangement
drives down the cost to the point where framing contractors who hire actual employees, and
provide all related worker's compensation insurance and other benefits, cannot compete. O'Brien
asked Baltz for clarification on the type of insurance coverage his company provides for workers
should they get hurt on the job. Baltz provided clarification. Baltz added that in addition to
requiring and/or providing worker's compensation insurance for workers, his company has an
extensive safety program and a full time safety officer.
Fielder asked appellant whether or not D & R's safety procedures manual was provided in
Spanish. Baltz confirmed this. Fielder asked if the safety officer was bilingual. Baltz stated that
the safety officer was not bilingual, but that there was at least one person on most crews that was
at least somewhat proficient in Spanish.
Building Review Board • •
October 26, 2000
Page 7
Lee closed by stating that he appreciated appellant's candor and his efforts to protect his workers.
He noted that the issue for him as an administrator was the test and that it would be impossible
for the City to come up with a test in every possible language. Lee stated that he recognized that
Spanish is the most predominate minority language in the country but that the department simply
does not currently have the facilities or the wherewithal to provide Spanish tests. Lee also
mentioned that he had some concern with the blanket waiver and thought it would be more
appropriate for each individual applicant requesting an exam waiver to come before the Board so
that a decision could be made on the merits of each individual case.
Hauck mentioned that he had no questions as to D & R's qualifications to be a licensed
subcontractor. He stated, however, that he did not feel that the request for a blanket exam waiver
was appropriate at this time. He made a motion that appellant's request for a blanket exam
waiver be denied due to the fact that a hardship was not demonstrated and due to the fact that
approval of such a request might give a financial advantage to one contractor over another in the
City. Fielder seconded the motion.
VOTE:
YEAS: McCoy, Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey
NAYS: Little
The motion passed 5-1.
4. CONTRACTOR APPEAL — MICHAEL ROSSI, D/B/A LIFESTRUCTURES, INC.:
Lee provided information relative to this appeal. He stated that the appellant was requesting a
waiver of the City's exam requirement based on his construction experience. According to Lee,
the appellant inadvertently let his license lapse past the 90 day grace period and, in order to
reinstate his license, must submit a new application and must meet the related requirements,
including testing. Lee added that the appellant last tested with the City in 1990, and that the test
covered the 1985 UBC. Lee noted that the appellant kept his license current from 1990 through
1999 and there were no violations or complaints in the file.
Shirlene Romero, a representative of LifeStructures, Inc., addressed the Board. She mentioned
that Michael was not able to attend today's meeting. Romero added that they became immersed
in a process to change their company name from Rossi Homes, Inc. to LifeStructures, Inc.,and
were working through a total restructuring of the company, and simply forgot about the license
renewal until such time that they were ready to start a project in Fort Collins.
Hauck asked for clarification on the last test that had been taken by appellant. Romero provided
clarification.
Massey asked if appellant had taken any other classes or refresher courses. Romero answered
that she was aware that he had attended some training on commercial construction. Massey asked
if she had specific examples of the training that was attended. Romero stated that she did not
have specific examples.
Massey asked for clarification on the last project that was done by Rossi Homes in Fort Collins.
Romero answered that the last project would have been the Ridgewood Hills area in December of
1998. Massey asked if this project entailed single family home construction. Romero confirmed
this.
Building Review Board
October 26, 2000
Page 8
Kreul-Froseth asked if appellant currently held a comparable license in any other municipality.
Romero answered that appellant is licensed with the City of Loveland.
McCoy asked for clarification on the process and requirements for renewing a license. Lee
provided clarification.
Fielder asked for clarification on whether or not similar cases have been approved by the Board
Coldiron confirmed that the Board had approved similar cases.
Massey made a motion to approve appellant's request for an exam waiver based on the fact that
the appellant had constructed homes under more recent buildings codes than 1985 and based on
the fact that he currently held an equivalent license in another municipality. Fielder seconded the
motion.
Kreul-Froseth asked if there would be a record of this oversight in appellant's file. Fielder
answered that a copy of the minutes reflecting the Board's action on this case would be placed in
the file. Lee confirmed this.
Little asked for clarification on any penalties that would be assessed as part of the reapplication
process. Lee stated that no penalties would be assessed; however, the applicant would be
required to pay a $75 application fee in addition to the license fee.
VOTE:
YEAS: McCoy, Little, Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey
NAYS:
The motion passed unanimously.
5. CONTRACTOR HEARING — CHARLES L. WICKSTROM:
Lee provided information relative to this appeal. He stated that the appellant had requested an
exam waiver based on the appellant's indication that he had 29 years of carpentry experience.
According to the appellant's information, he intended on applying for a C-1 supervisor's
certificate. Lee mentioned that the project verification forms submitted by the appellant were not
sufficient in scope to meet the requirements of the City's C-1 license category. Lee noted that
for a C-1 certificate an applicant must document supervision of two complete projects that are at
least a C-1 level (new commercial construction up to 2 stories and/or 7,500 square feet) and one
project that is at least a D-1 level (new single family homes). According to Lee, the project
submitted by the appellant for 1700 Linden Lake Road was sufficient for the D-Framing license;
the project for 165 E. Boardwalk was sufficient for the E license (commercial tenant finish) and
the project for 914 Pinnacle Place was sufficient for the D-1 license. He added that based on the
projects submitted, staff would be unable to approve a C-1 certificate.
Appellant, Charles Wickstrom, addressed the Board. He mentioned that he had misread the
information and stated that he would be applying for a D-1 or D-2 certificate. He stated that since
the time he had submitted his paperwork, he was able to obtain two more project verification
forms and asked for permission to submit this information to the Board.
Lee stated that the additional references that had been submitted by the appellant were sufficient
for the D-Framing license.
Building Review Board • •
October 26, 2000
Page 9
Fielder asked for clarification on whether five references were required at times when an exam
waiver was granted. Lee confirmed that this had been a requirement in the past.
Appellant stated that he was informed by staff that he needed to submit three projects. Lee
clarified that three completed projects are required when an applicant has taken the required
exam. Wickstrom asked for clarification on the additional information that was needed. Lee
answered that documentation of five completed projects would be required should the Board
grant an exam waiver and that those projects would need to be for complete single family homes
if the appellant desired a D-1 certificate. Lee reiterated that the project on Pinnacle would be
sufficient for a D-1 certificate.
Fielder asked appellant if he would be able to submit documentation on five completed homes.
Wickstrom answered that he would be able to do so, but was simply unaware that he needed that
number of projects based on the information he had read and his discussions with staff.
Fielder stated that the Board had set a precedent to grant exam waivers when an applicant could
document an appropriate level of experience.
Kreul-Froseth mentioned that the one issue that had come up in the past is when documentation
was provided for projects done in the City where the applicant claimed that they built the project,
but did not have a valid license to perform the work.
There was some confusion on the type of license that the appellant was requesting. Lee reviewed
the various types of licenses that are available. Appellant stated that he was interested in
. obtaining a framing license. Fielder asked for clarification on the number of references that had
been submitted by the appellant that would be sufficient for the framing license. Lee noted that
all of the projects submitted would be sufficient for the framing license.
Kreul-Froseth stated the she would support the appellant's request for an exam waiver as long as
five original project verification forms documenting adequate experience for the framing license
were submitted.
Massey made a motion to approve appellant's request for an exam waiver contingent on the
appellant providing five project verification forms that meet the City's requirements for the
framing license. Kreul-Froseth made a friendly amendment to add that the motion is also based
on appellant's level of experience in the City of Fort Collins which is indicated by the records to
date. Hauck seconded the motion.
Little asked if the appellant understood that the motion was approving an exam waiver and the
issuance of a framing license once all necessary documentation had been received by staff.
Appellant confirmed that he understood this.
VOTE:
YEAS: McCoy, Little, Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey
NAYS:
The motion passed unanimously.
Building Review Board
October 26, 2000
Page 10
6. PUBLIC FORUM ON CONTRACTOR LICENSING REVISIONS:
Lee introduced three individuals who were present at the meeting who had participated on the
task group that reviewed and proposed revisions to the current licensing ordinance. He
mentioned that the task group had met several times over the past eight months and that in those
meetings there had been a lot of candid discussion and diversity of opinions. Lee noted that the
latest public meeting to discuss the proposed licensing revisions was held on August 21, 2000.
The meeting, according to Lee, lasted the full three hours that were scheduled and was followed
by an impromptu meeting by various meeting participants to further discuss some of the issues.
Lee stated that at this meeting there were many diverse opinions expressed with themes ranging
from general contractors being entirely responsible for construction projects and requiring
licenses for very few, if any, specialty trade contractors, to implementing a master/journeyman/
apprentice program for specialty trade contractors. Lee added that there were also discussions
regarding the ethical questions of whether or not the City should take a strong stand on requiring
worker's compensation coverage for all workers and assuring that contractors had "legitimate"
employees, etc.
Lee stated that because there was such a vast diversity of opinions on some of the issues, it was
his feeling that, in the interest of moving forward with the process, all parties made some
compromises. He mentioned that the task group met one additional time in September, following
the public meeting, and was finally able to work through most of the issues and produce a viable
document. Lee noted that the current proposal would not please everyone, but thought it did
adequately address all of the issues. He added that the proposal included a provision for the use,
by licensed specialty trade contractors, of exempt workers, provided that their work was
continuously supervised by a qualified supervisor of that specialty trade contractor.
Lee mentioned that one of the task groups members had pointed out a glitch in the prior language
related to supervising the work of the exempt workers since, by state law definition, this would
have made these workers employees. According to Lee, he met with the City attorney and was
able to come up with some alternative language that meets the letter of the law and still requires
that a supervisor be continuously on -site to ensure that the end product meets all plans,
specifications, and related codes.
Next, Lee gave Board Members a brief presentation regarding the licensing revision process. He
stated that the purpose of contractor licensing was to enhance public safety through minimum
qualifications and accountability for contractors and specialty trades performing work in the City.
Lee noted that contractor licensing in Fort Collins dated back to 1955. He added that significant
changes were made to the licensing ordinance in 1981, 1992 and 1999 (implementation of the
framing license).
Lee then reviewed the proposed revisions, including: more explicit definition of work and trade
exemptions; expanded scope of work for some of the license categories; addition of specialty
contractor trades (wood framing, cast -in place concrete); allowance of exempt specialty trade
workers; implementation of a biannual licensing process; standardization of fees for all license
categories; addition of a requirement for re-examination or a continuing education class for
certificate holders when new codes had been adopted; addition of a requirement that all specialty
trade contractors have qualified supervisors on -site; addition of a requirement that specialty trade
contractors submit documentation of experience, including proof of adequate time spent
practicing their specific trade; addition of violations for employing workers who are not
employees and/or do not meet the definition of an allowed exempt specialty trade worker, for
excessive and/or repeated failed inspections (authorizes building official to immediately suspend
the license), and for working without the required contractor license (authorizes a $200 penalty
Building Review Board •
October 26, 2000
Page 11
assessment); and clarification of the requirement that all workers, including exempt specialty
trade workers, must be covered by liability insurance.
Lee mentioned that the proposed revisions are set to go before City Council for first reading on
November 21, 2000 and for second reading in December. He added that the next opportunity for
public comment will be at the Affordable Housing Board meeting scheduled for 4:00 p.m. on
November 2, 2000, at 281 N. College Avenue.
Lee expressed his appreciation to all of the task group members for all of the time, effort and
patience that went into creating the proposed ordinance.
Little mentioned that the members of the task force went through considerable exercises to try to
come up with a reasonable solution for all of the issues that were addressed. He stated that in no
way was this a process to try to come up with ways to generate more revenue for the City and/or
make things more difficult for contractors. He added that the process was a legitimate response
to being fair to all trades, across the board, as it affected the health and safety of the community.
He applauded the members of the task force that were in attendance at the meeting, as well as
those that were not in attendance, for their willingness to work through the issues and reaching
compromises that helped assure that all issues were being addressed. Little thanked staff for all
of their efforts to continue to push the task force forward and for being receptive and patient with
the process. Little stated that although the final document may not be the panacea or final result,
it was a legitimate attempt to try to create equity across the board for contractors and protect the
community.
• Hauck thanked the task force for their efforts and mentioned that they had done an outstanding
job in dealing with some very difficult issues. He asked for clarification on the exempt specialty
trade worker clause. Lee provided clarification. Hauck asked if a ratio of supervisors to workers
had been further defined and stated that his concern was that in housing projects where there is
one supervisor and perhaps 300 homes being constructed, there is the potential that specialty
trade work could be proceeding concurrently in a number of these homes, which basically
minimizes the amount of supervision. Lee answered that he had given this issue a great deal of
thought but had not yet developed anything specific. He stated that he planned to do this as part
of the policies and procedures that are allowed for under the terms of the ordinance, unless
directed otherwise.
Fielder suggested that perhaps supervision was more a permitting issue and that when a
contractor applied for a permit, based on the square footage and number of units, etc., they would
be required to have X number of supervisors on the project. It was his opinion that doing it this
way would assure that the level of supervision required would be determined on a case by case
basis versus less specific language in the licensing ordinance. Lee answered that he intended to
put a written policy into place to address this issue. He added that he is looking at the state model
for electricians and may use this as a basis for the policy he develops. Lee confirmed that it is his
intent to require more qualified supervisor to be on site.
Massey stated that he thought this issue might be covered with the language that requires
"continuous" supervision, but was concerned that the Board will continue to have the same
problems that currently occur with plumbers and electricians where they state that their
supervisor had to run an errand, left for lunch, etc. Massey asked if, when an inspector showed
up on a job site and there was no supervisor, this would be considered a violation. Lee stated that
generally speaking he thought this should be the case. He noted that a determination would have
to be made on whether or not the supervisor was on site, perhaps at a different address, but
available, and if this met the requirements of the supervision policy that had been put in place.
Building Review Board
October 26, 2000
Page 12
He added that if the supervisor was completely off site that that would definitely constitute a
violation. He clarified that this issue only deals with the specialty trade contractors at this point.
Fielder asked for clarification on whether an inspector would be able to immediately suspend a
license, or if that right was reserved for the building official. Lee confirmed that this would be
the decision of the building official, not the inspector. Lee added that the violation would have to
be egregious, repeated, or very severe in nature before he would exercise this option.
Massey asked for clarification on the number of years of experience that will now be required for
the specialty trade contractors. Lee stated that currently there are no time requirements for any of
the contractors, except when a general contractor is requesting an exam waiver. He noted that
specialty trade contractors are focused on one trade and that building five full buildings is
different than installing five furnaces. So, the task group felt that there should be some training
time required prior to issuing a specialty trade license, as well as any required tests. Lee
mentioned that the actual number of years chosen was somewhat arbitrary. The task group
determined that for those trades where health and safety were an issue, i.e., framing, HVAC, etc.,
more training time should be required, and three years was suggested. For those specialty trades
where health and safety were not so much an issue, it was determined that a year of training time
would be sufficient. Massey asked whether the time experience was in addition to the testing
requirements. Lee confirmed this.
Massey asked for clarification on the construction that homeowners and/or building owners were
allowed to do. Lee answered that the ordinance language had been revised to be somewhat more
restrictive for building owners, however that homeowners were still allowed to do any work on
their own personal residence. Lee noted that the revised ordinance proposes to limit homeowners
to building one new personal residence every 24 months, instead of allowing them to build a new
personal residence every 12 months.
Lee next reviewed the types of work and trades that are not regulated under the licensing
ordinance.
Hauck asked for clarification on whether the specialty trade contractors would be required to
carry worker's compensation insurance on the exempt specialty trade workers, as well as liability
insurance. Lee mentioned that he was unaware, until hearing earlier testimony, that a company
was able to carry worker's compensation insurance on workers who were not actual employees.
Lee noted that this issue had been addressed many times by the task group. .
Gino Campania, a member of the license revision task group, stated that it was his understanding
that language was included to assure that all contractors would have to meet the same insurance
requirements. Lee directed everyone to this specific language shown on the last page and noted
that the language really relates only to public liability insurance, and makes no mention of
worker's compensation insurance.
O'Brien stated that it was his understanding that worker's compensation insurance only applies to
actual employees. He was unaware of a disability or other policies that exist that would cover
workers who were injured and were not an employee. O'Brien noted that he believed that the
issue of workers who are not covered by any kind of disability and/or worker's compensation
insurance was a huge problem in the state.
Campana reiterated that it was his understanding that the intent of the task group was to ensure
that the same rules and guidelines for insurance would be required of the specialty trade
contractors as are required for general contractors. He suggested that the language should be
clarified as needed so that it accurately reflected the intent of the task group.
Building Review Board • •
October 26, 2000
Page 13
. Hauck mentioned that based on his understanding of earlier comments that state regulations allow
a 10% owner of a company to exempt themselves from worker's compensation coverage, he had
some major concerns that a number of the crews who will take advantage of the proposed exempt
specialty trade worker provision will set themselves up in this fashion and opt out of worker's
compensation coverage. Lee stated that as he understands state law, if a worker is eligible for
worker's compensation, then they are considered employees. He added that these workers would
not meet the definition of an exempt specialty trade worker. Lee noted, however, that any exempt
specialty trade crew that had actual employees, would be required to cover their employees by
worker's compensation just as any other contractor is required to do.
Hauck asked for clarification on how D & R Framing was able to cover their subcontractor's
employees under D & R's worker's compensation policy. Baltz provided clarification and
mentioned that there is a provision where you can cover workers who are not actual employees of
a company. He added that the state does not force you to cover these workers, but does not
prohibit you from doing this should you elect to do so.
O'Brien stated that there are very few contractors who would be willing to cover workers who
were not actual employees under their worker's compensation policies. It was his opinion that
the City was somewhat perpetuating the problem of uncovered workers by allowing exempt
workers without requiring that they be covered by worker's compensation policies in one form or
another.
Hauck stated that he did not know if the licensing regulations was the appropriate venue for
addressing this issue; however, he agreed that the industry has developed a subcontractor to
subcontractor relationship in an effort to avoid worker's compensation coverage. He mentioned
that he was personally appalled by this and felt that at some point along the way the issue needed
to be addressed.
Campania mentioned that the provision for exempt workers that has been proposed does not allow
for one exempt crew to subcontract to another. Each exempt crew is required to subcontract
directly with the licensed specialty trade contractor. Lee confirmed this. Hauck responded that a
single licensed specialty trade contractor could hire multiple exempt crews, each one which could
have multiple workers, who may or may not have opted out of worker's compensation coverage.
Campania mentioned that a general contractor can do that right now so no advantage is being
given to the specialty trade contractors by allowing this provision. Hauck stated that one of the
outcomes of the current licensing ordinance is that it forces contractors either to become licensed
individually, or to be considered actual employees of a company whereby they are covered by a
worker's compensation policy.
Mickie McNeal, from Vargas Construction, addressed the Board. She reiterated the concern of
ethnic crews not being able to pass a test given only in English. She asked whether someone else
in the company could take the test, or if the test could be given to a person orally so that they
could respond. Lee stated that the revisions propose that all contractors will have to have at least
one qualified supervisor for the company who would be required to pass any applicable exam.
Lee noted that the person would not necessarily have to be the owner, but would have to be an
employee. Lee clarified that should the revision be adopted by City Council, supervision will
become a crucial issue and there will have to a supervisor on site at all times. McNeal mentioned
• that they have four crews and asked if that would mean that they would need four supervisors.
Lee confirmed this. McNeal asked if there would be any exam waivers granted based on
experience and asked if tests could be given orally. Lee answered that interpreters are allowed to
assist examinees with an exam. McNeal asked if someone else would be able to write the
Building Review Board
October 26, 2000
Page 14
answers for the examinee. Lee was unsure on that. McNeal stated that she believed that this
would be a request of many contractors based on the language barriers that exist due to the
number of ethnic workers in the industry. Lee stated that the City would attempt to accommodate
legitimate obstacles such as language barriers, learning disabilities, etc. Lee noted that the
applicant always has the option of going before the Building Review Board to request exam
waivers based on experience or other relevant factors.
Lee asked Baltz for further clarification on the worker's compensation coverage they provide to
employees of their subcontractors. Baltz provided clarification. Lee stated that he believed that
the proposed ordinance, as written, is in line with what is being done by D & R, since the state
requires employees to be covered by worker's comp. Although, according to Lee, the City does
not enforce state law, worker's compensation coverage for employees is a state law requirement.
Little asked Baltz if the State of Colorado was the underwriter for his insurance policy. Baltz
stated that his company has used Colorado Compensation Authority, Pinnacle Assurance and
Liberty Mutual. His company typically researches a variety of companies in an attempt to get the
best rates possible. Baltz added that they have never been denied coverage on any claim or had
any of the companies refuse to the honor the extension that has been given to cover employees of
subcontractors.
Massey asked if the intent of the task group was to get all workers on a job site covered by
worker's compensation insurance. Lee stated that he did not believe that this was the overall
intent of the entire group. Lee mentioned that the ordinance, as currently written, does not
preclude this from happening, and does require that contractors abide by state law. Massey asked
if all members were aware that a loop hole continues to remain where certain workers are allowed
to opt out of worker's compensation coverage. O'Brien stated that this is something that has
bothered him throughout the process and, in the interest of consensus, he chose to put this issue
aside. From an ethical standpoint, O'Brien mentioned that the City could set the standard above
what the State requires, but this item did not receive the support from other task group members.
Massey stated that the cheapest option for a licensed specialty contractor would be to hire a group
of workers who would be considered as at least 10% owners and who would most likely opt out
of worker's compensation coverage. It was Massey's opinion that this would be a highly likely
scenario.
O'Brien asked for clarification on how site workers would be identified, etc. Lee stated that staff
would not get involved in this unless there were specific problems that would merit an
investigation.
Campania reiterated that as part of some of the compromises that had been made, the building
official was given some additional tools to regulate problem contractors who continually fail
inspections, etc. Lee stated that it is good to reiterate this and, in the case of a contractor who
used workers that were not either employees or legitimate exempt workers, the job could be
stopped, license suspended, etc. Lee noted that there are now some pretty severe repercussions
for misconduct.
O'Brien asked for clarification on whether the exempt crews would be required to submit
insurance or other paperwork to the City. Lee stated that at this point, the only time information
related to the exempt crews would be submitted to the City would be if staff requested it for some
reason.
Little asked if Lee wanted the Board to make a motion. Lee answered that if the Board were
prepared to make a recommendation to City Council, that would keep the process moving
Building Review Board •
October 26, 2000
Page 15
• forward. Otherwise, Lee suggested, that a special meeting might be necessary so that a
recommendation could be obtained from the Board prior to the Council Meeting scheduled for
November 21.
Little stated that he thought it was time to move forward with this. He made a motion that the
revisions to the contractor licensing ordinance that were presented to the Building Review Board
today, be approved and submitted to City Council for review and adoption. Fielder seconded the
motion.
Kreul-Froseth mentioned the she received and read through the minutes from the task group and
she commended the group for the time and energy that went into preparing this document. She
stated that she was seeing the final document for the first time today and was not sure that she had
had enough time to really look through it. She stated that she had no specific questions, but was
not sure that she felt totally comfortable with approving it since she had not had time to read it
completely.
Little stated that he did not want to rush the Board's decision on this. He added that he had been
involved in the process from the beginning so he felt very comfortable with the document. He
thought it was important that each of the Board Members take an appropriate amount of time to
digest the information, make comments, etc. He added that he had no problem with reserving his
motion for a later date, with the exception that time is somewhat of an essence due to the fact that
the issue is scheduled to go before Council on November 21. Little asked for clarification on the
next time the Board was scheduled to meet. Lee stated that due to the Thanksgiving Holiday, the
Board meeting would be scheduled for November 16" so this meeting would occur prior to the
• deadline for getting information to Council.
Little withdrew his motion.
Lee reiterated that the next time available for public comment on this issue was at the Affordable
Housing Board meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 2, at 4:00 p.m., at 281 N. College
Avenue.
There was further discussion on whether or not the City should require specialty contractors to
have paperwork on file for any exempt crews they are utilizing that shows they have appropriate
insurance, have filed for a trade name, waivers, etc.
OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Election of Officers
This item was rescheduled to the November meeting.
Meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
•