Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 06/29/2000A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, June 29, 2000, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building, at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Fielder, Thomas Hartmann, Gene Little and Brad Massey BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Al Hauck, Susan Kreul-Froseth, and Rudy Hansch STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Felix Lee, Director of Building & Zoning Delynn Coldiron, staff support to Board AGENDA: ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Fielder and roll taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Board Member Little made a motion to approve the Minutes. Board Member Hartmann seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously and the Minutes from the May 25, 2000 meeting were approved as submitted. CONTRACTOR APPEAL — Gino Campana, d/b/a Bellisimo, Inc.: Chairperson Fielder explained the procedures that would be used for the meeting. Felix Lee provided information relative to this appeal. Lee stated that the appellant was requesting a one-time exemption from his current C-2 license which would allow him to build an apartment complex that exceeded the current limitations of the Class C-2 license. Lee clarified that the C-2 license limits construction to two stories. Lee mentioned that the supporting information which was provided by the appellant reflected multi -family experience, as well as some commercial construction experience. For the GK Gymnastics project which was submitted by the appellant, the appellant acted as the project manager. The general contractor of record was Kermit Nuckles; however, the appellant maintained that he was on -site on a daily basis throughout the project and gained significant experience as the overall project manager. Another project which was submitted by the appellant, BRB June 29, 2000 Page 2 and was done by his company, was the conversion of the Vogue Theater in Denver into dwelling units. Lee stated that staff was unable to approve a Class B license for the appellant due to insufficient documented experience which is required by the ordinance. This was the impetus for the appellant's request for a one-time exemption to his current license that would allow him to build a multi -family project that exceeded two stories in height. Lee added that the appellant is an unlicensed civil engineer; has taken the Denver Class B exam and holds a current Denver Class B license; and also holds a Class I license with the City of Loveland. Stuart Olive, a representative for the appellant, addressed the Board. Olive provided clarification on the documented experience that had been provided by the appellant. He stated that Bellisimo acted as the project supervisor on the GK Gymnastics job and orchestrated all aspects of the job underneath the general contractor who actually did the construction work and made sure that everything was done according to City standards. According to Olive, this building exceeded the 7,500 sq. ft. limit of the C-1 license and would qualify for a Class B project under the City's current licensing regulations. For the Vogue Theater job, Olive mentioned that this building was originally designed to be a commercial building; however, the owner changed his mind and decided to turn it into lofts. Because the building was over 100 years old, the project entailed actually demolishing the building down to the footers in certain areas and was then rebuilt. Olive stated that this project also exceeded 7,500 sq. ft. Olive added that Bellisimo had been involved in at least four other commercial projects in Ft. Collins that would be classified as a tenant finish, which did not exceed 7,500 sq. ft., as well as responsible for the construction of over 200 multi- family units, and four residential homes which have exceeded 7,500 sq. ft. According to Olive, Bellisimo planned on building a 3-story, 80-unit apartment complex located behind the Kentucky Fried Chicken off of Elizabeth and Taft Hill. Olive reiterated that they were seeking a one-time variance to the licensing regulations that would allow appellant to act as the general contractor on this project. He stated that under Section 15-153 of the City's licensing regulations, he believed that the Board had the power to grant such a variance, and, it was his opinion, that the appellant had submitted sufficient evidence demonstrating adequate construction experience which would allow the Board to grant his request. Olive added that Bellisimo had every incentive to do a good job on this project since they would not only be the constructor of the project, but also planned to retain possession of the project after the construction was completed. Lee asked for clarification on the extent of the Vogue Theater project in terms of number of units, size, stories, etc. Appellant, Gino Campana, addressed the Board. He clarified that the building was approximately 12,000 sq. ft., had two -stories and six units. Campana stated that the only part of the original building that remained were parts of the roof and certain areas of the sides. New footings were constructed for the project. Olive mentioned that during the process of building the proposed project, the appellant planned to use licensed architects and engineers to draft the plans, and that licensed subcontractors would be used to do the work, etc., so the project would comply with all of the City's ordinances. Fielder asked for clarification on the Denver Class B license. Lee answered that it was his recollection that the Denver B license was similar to the Ft. Collins Class B license and allowed for any type of construction up to four or five stories. Appellant stated that the license allowed for any type of construction up to five stories. BRB j • June 29, 2000 Page 3 Hartmann asked for clarification on the type of construction that would be used for the proposed project. Appellant answered that it would be a wood -framed project. Hartmann asked for the same clarification on the Vogue Theater and GK Gymnastics projects. Appellant answered that the Vogue Theater was a combination of masonry, steel trusses and wood framing, and that GK Gymnastics was a steel building. Olive stated that the proposed project would qualify under the new licensing regulations that are being proposed which have not yet been adopted by the City without an exemption from the Board. He mentioned that he understood the purpose of the review process as it related to construction safety, etc., and applauded the efforts of the Board and the City in this regard. It was his opinion that in this case, the appellant had the necessary experience required that would allow him to safely construct the proposed project. He also reiterated that the appellant had an engineering degree. Board Member Massey stated that his firm was the architect of record for several of the projects that were listed by the appellant. Lee asked if Massey was excusing himself due to a conflict of interest. Massey stated that he did not believe there was a conflict of interest in this case since he did not know the applicant personally. Little asked appellant if his proposed project would be adding to an already existing apartment building. Appellant stated that he would be constructing a new building. Little made a motion to approve a one-time exemption for Gino Campana, d/b/a Bellisimo, Inc., that would allow him to construct his proposed project. Little commented that he felt it was important to allow the appellant the opportunity to gain additional construction experience on these types of projects and stated that he was very comfortable in this case since the appellant would continue to retain ownership of the project once it was completed. Fielder asked if either party had closing statements that they wished to present. Lee asked for added clarification from the appellant on his role with the GK Gymnastics project. Appellant stated that he was hired as the project manager for this project. He mentioned that the project started as a vacant lot which needed site development. According to the appellant, he was responsible for arranging for the installation of water and sewer systems; for the hiring of the appropriate licensed contractors to do the work; for assuring that all appropriate insurance was in place; for scheduling; for ascertaining and maintaining the budget; for assuring final compliance with all building codes in order to obtain a CO; and all other aspects of the project. Massey seconded the motion that was on the floor. Fielder stated that he thought this case was very much in line with other similar situations where contractors had been granted exceptions to their licenses. Massey agreed, and stated that he had an added level of comfort in this case due to the fact that the appellant had an engineering degree. VOTE: Yeas: Hartmann, Little, Fielder, Massey Nays: None The motion passed unanimously. BRB June 29, 2000 Page 4 4. CONTRACTOR APPEAL — Brian Artzer, d/b/a Westech Construction Management Lee presented information relative to this appeal. He stated that the appellant in this case was requesting a one-time exemption to his current C-1 license that would allow him to build a restaurant that minimally exceeded the 7,500 sq. ft. limitation. Del Lukasiewicz, license holder and president of Westech Construction, addressed the Board. He stated that he is a 1985 graduate of CSU where he obtained a construction management degree. According to Lukasiewicz, he started Westech Construction in 1988, and noted that in the past 12 years his company had built over 350 restaurants and gas stations, some of which had exceeded 7,500 sq. ft. Lukasiewicz mentioned a couple of examples, including a Denny's restaurant which exceeded 10,000 sq. ft. in Branson, Missouri and a Black Eyed Pea restaurant which exceeded 8,000 sq. ft. in Colorado Springs. Appellant explained that he holds a Class B license with the City of Denver, as well as licenses in well over 20 cities throughout Colorado and in over 20 states. It was his opinion that this project was not a stretch from his company's expertise. Lukasiewicz added that he had personally been involved in the construction of tilt -up structures that exceeded 100,000 sq. ft. Lukasiewicz reiterated that he was seeking a one-time exemption to his current C-1 license that would enable him to proceed with the proposed project. He stated that he anticipates that he will have future need for a higher license class and plans to eventually upgrade his license. Little made a motion for approval of a one-time exemption that would allow Westec Construction to proceed with their proposed project based on the experience of the company and the fact that they are existing license holders in other cities. Fielder seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Hartmann, Little, Fielder, Massey Nays: None The motion passed unanimously. CONTRACTOR APPEAL — Jim Packard, d/b/a Stimack Construction Lee provided information relative to this appeal. He stated that the appellant in this case was requesting a license exemption that would allow his company to complete repair and restoration resulting from damage, typically fire damage, to both commercial and residential structures. Lee explained that the original license for Stimack Construction was held by Gerald Hammond, who was approved for a Class D2 license in 1996. He clarified that the D2 license allows for additions, alterations and repairs to residential units up to a duplex. According to Lee, Hammond left employment with Stimack earlier in the year, and a new application was submitted by Firman Borden, another employee of Stimack Construction. The license category requested on the application was a Class B (any new construction up to five stories). Lee mentioned that although Mr. Borden had successfully passed the Class A Colorado reciprocal supervisor exam, staff was unable to authorize the Class B license requested due to insufficient project experience. Lee explained that the projects that were submitted were limited to fire damage repairs and did not include any new construction. BRB June 29, 2000 Page 5 According to Lee, a temporary C I license was issued to Stimack Construction, so that fire restoration to the El Palomino motel could begin while license approval was pending. Lee added that the project passed all inspections and received a Letter of Completion on April 25, 2000. Lee stated that the temporary license had now expired and, due to the complications surrounding the level of license requested and the actual documented experience submitted which was insufficient for that level of license, the applicant currently had no license. Lee explained that a Class C 1 license is the minimum license, under the City's current licensing structure, which would allow structural modifications to commercial and residential buildings. However, Lee noted that to qualify for this license, the ordinance prescribes that two of the projects submitted must be for new commercial construction which meets all related criteria requirements. Lee stated that due to the nature of the work done by the appellant's company, which is geared towards fire restoration, this level of project experience was not available. Jim Packard, appellant in this case, addressed the Board. He stated that there was not a lot he could add to what had already been presented but reiterated that his company does not get involved in new work, and had no intentions of doing new construction in the future. Packard explained that his company had been in the insurance restoration business for 18 years in Denver. He added that he started working in Fort Collins approximately two years ago, with Gerald Hammond, an employee of his company who happened to have new construction experience. According to Packard, most of the supervisors for his company do not have new construction experience, although they have been in the industry for many years focusing on repair and restoration work. Packard mentioned that there is no category in the Ft. Collins licensing structure that fits well with the work his company performs. He added that his company is licensed in 31 other jurisdictions in the State of Colorado and nine other states. He was seeking approval of some sort of license that would enable his company to effect repairs on commercial and residential buildings. Fielder asked for clarification on whether the Board could grant a restricted license. Lee answered that the Board had done so in the past. Little asked for clarification on whether or not Mr. Borden would hold the license and if he was an actual employee of Stimack Construction. Packard confirmed that Mr. Borden would be the license holder and that he was an actual employee of Stimack Construction. Massey asked for clarification on the actual license being requested. Packard stated that based on his discussions with staff, the C I license was the license that was being recommended. Fielder asked if the C 1 license would be sufficient in terms of square footage. Packard confirmed this and mentioned that whenever his company gets involved in a large commercial project, the work is subcontracted to a general contractor. Massey stated that he was concerned with the confusion and/or other issues that might arise in the future if the Board were to grant a number of licenses with restrictions. Fielder noted that this company had requested a restriction specifically for fire damage repairs, and thought this restriction would be easily discernable. BRB June 29, 2000 Page 6 Massey asked for additional clarification on the type of work that would be done by appellant's company. Packard answered that his company strictly does repairs that result from an insured loss. Massey asked if a restriction denoting that the work authorized under the license must be related to insurance loss, i.e., fire, wind, hail, etc., would be explicit enough. Lee answered that if the restriction was for damage repair only staff could track this. Fielder asked appellant if he would be able to bring information from the insurance company verifying that a loss had occurred at the time a permit was being obtained. Packard answered that at the time his company would obtain a permit they would have an insurance industry contract signed by the building owner which would fulfill this requirement. Massey asked for clarification on the licenses that are currently held by appellant's company that would be comparable to the City's Class C1 license. Packard answered that Sheridan and Lafayette were probably comparable, and that many of the other licenses also allowed his company to perform commercial work. Massey asked appellant if he was the license holder for any of the other licenses. Packard answered that he was not the license holder for any of them. He stated that he is the division manager for the Ft. Collins/northern Colorado business and that he had been in the construction industry for 31 years; 23 years of which were in the insurance industry. Packard added that he had been a license holder in other states, but was not individually licensed in Colorado. Lee stated that staff had no significant issues with the Board authorizing a restricted Class C 1 license. Little made a motion to approve a temporary Class Cl license to Stimack Construction with the understanding that the individual named on the license certificate would be Firman Borden. Massey mentioned that it was not his understanding that the applicant was seeking a temporary license in this case and noted that the restrictions the Board had discussed should be added. Little amended his motion to strike "temporary" and to add the restriction that the construction authorized under said license was limited to restoration and repairs specifically related to insured losses. He further clarified that the appellant would be required to show proof of insurance loss at the time a permit was obtained. Hartmann seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Hartmann, Little, Fielder, Massey Nays: None The motion passed unanimously. 6. CONTRACTOR HEARING — Brock Wagner, d/b/a Home Solutions: Fielder explained the procedures that would be used for the remaining contractor hearings. Lee stated that the respondent, Brock Wagner, had requested a continuance since he would be unable to appear due an emergency that had come up that morning. Lee noted, however, that the Complainant, Ron Arrigo, was in the audience. BRB June 29, 2000 Page 7 Fielder asked if it was appropriate to hear a case without the respondent being present. Lee answered that the respondent was not required to appear. He also noted that staff could not be an advocate or elaborate on what the respondent might convey in lieu of the respondent appearing in person. Board Members briefly discussed this item. Hartmann made a motion to grant a continuance in this case. Massey stated that he was concerned with continuances because they allow a contractor to stretch out time and finish up busy construction periods before they worry about dealing with problems that have occurred. He suggested that one option might be to suspend the respondent's license until such time that he came before the Board to discuss this matter. Little stated that the Board's agenda is not going to lessen, and he felt that more notification should have been given for the continuance request. It was his opinion that the Board should hear the case and then decide whether the license should be suspended, or the case continued based on the information that was presented. There was no second to the motion on the floor and the motion failed Massey made a motion to hear the homeowner's testimony and then at that point determine whether or not to proceed with action or a continuance in this case. Little seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Hartmann, Little, Fielder, Massey Nays: None The motion passed unanimously. Lee presented information relative to this appeal. He stated that staff received a letter from Ron Arrigo, the homeowner at 4343 Beaver Creek Drive, who had contracted with the respondent, Brock Wagner, d/b/a Home Solutions, to complete a basement finish. In the letter, Mr. Arrigo had asked the City to review the allegations that were summarized and to determine whether or not the contractor should be permitted to continue to do work in the City of Fort Collins. Lee explained that Affigo's letter alleged that the contractor: 1) Misrepresented the project valuation for the project so that he would be permitted to obtain the required permit. Lee noted that the Respondent holds a Class J license which is the City's home improvement license and restricts projects to a valuation of no more than $10,000.00. According to the letter and supporting documentation that was received from Arrigo, the project valuation agreed to on the contract was $11,000.00. 2) Performed plumbing work which, according to Lee, was in violation to the City's code. 3) Threatened Arrigo and his wife and refused to leave their property until the police came and removed the respondent from the premises. Lee stated that a copy of the police report was attached. Based on the information that was provided by the complainant, staff believed that Brock Wagner, d/b/a Home solutions, may have committed the following acts in violation of Section 15- 158(f) and Section 15-306(a) of the City's licensing regulations: BRB June 29, 2000 Page 8 Section 15-158(f): "(1) Willful and deliberate disregard of the building code or any other code adopted by the city related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the certificate holder or license holder set forth in this Article; (2) Failure to comply with any provision of the Code related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the certificate holder or license holder as set forth in this Article; (4) Misrepresentation of a material fact by a license holder or supervisor certificate holder in obtaining a building permit, license or supervisor certificate, or fraud in obtaining a building permit, license or supervisor certificate; and (8) Performance of work for which a license is required without a valid, current license; " Section 15-306: (a) Failure to register as a plumber with the Division of Building Permits and Inspections prior to engaging in the trade, business or calling of a plumber (includes installing or making additions, alterations and repairs to potable water supply, distribution pipes and piping, plumbing fixtures, drainage and vent pipes, and building drains, including their respective joints and connections, devices, receptacles and appurtenances). Lee explained that the Building Review Board was empowered to determine whether Brock Wagner, d/b/a Home Solutions had committed any of the acts described above and that should the Board find that Home Solutions did indeed commit such act(s) described above, that the board was empowered to suspend, revoke, or take other action on the respondent's license. Ron Arrigo, the homeowner in this case, addressed the Board. He stated that his intention in submitting this letter to the Board was to let them know that there was a contractor in Fort Collins who was, in a number of ways, a loose canon. With regard to the valuation stated on the building permit, Arrigo mentioned that he had spoken with staff at the building department and was told that often times the valuation did not include carpet, etc. He noted that in this case this argument was not relevant since he was required to buy all of the extras for the bathroom, the plumbing, paint, carpet, etc., which items were not included in the contract valuation of $11,000.00. According to Arrigo, the $11,000.00 figure noted on the contract was strictly for the construction work to be performed by the contractor for installing walls, drywall, etc. Arrigo pointed out that the valuation listed by the contractor on the building permit was $8,000.00. With regard to the plumbing work that was done by the contractor, Arrigo stated that he had discussed with the respondent the fact that he wanted a building permit obtained and licensed contractors used for work that could not be performed by the respondent. According to Arrigo, the respondent stated that he was authorized to perform the plumbing work. Arrigo noted that the plumbing included cutting into some existing pipes and dropping plumbing lines for a sink, toilet and shower. Arrigo stated that he had had a contract dispute with the respondent when the respondent was late in getting the project done and did a shoddy job installing trim. Arrigo explained that the trim was installed prior to being stained, in many cases was not nailed to the wall, was placed on top BRB June 29, 2000 Page 9 of the concrete floor without sufficient spacing to allow for carpet installation, that some of the trim was cracked, etc. Due to this, Arrigo stated that he refused to pay for that portion of the work until the problems had been resolved. The respondent then, according to Arrigo, threatened him and his wife, refused to leave their residence until he received payment, walked towards their basement and threatened to remove the trim, pushed Arrigo's wife, and yelled and screamed at them. At this point, Arrigo stated that he called 911 to summon the police. He gave the phone to the respondent and the 911 operator convinced him to wait outside until the police had arrived. Arrigo stated that the respondent finally left the premises once the police had talked with him for approximately 30 minutes and then issued a trespassing order to him. It was Arrigo's opinion that the respondent's behavior was inappropriate and he feared that the respondent would react to others in the same fashion. He stated that there were a number of contractors that consumers could choose from and that none of them should have to put up with a contractor who behaved in this manner. Arrigo stated that he understood that the Board could do nothing regarding the legal issues in this case; however, he felt it was important to make the Board aware that there was a contractor out there who was not doing a good job and not representing his trade well. He asked that the Board consider suspending or revoking this contractor's license to protect other homeowners. Lee asked for clarification on whether the respondent actually installed drain pipes and water piping, or only installed fixtures. Arrigo answered that the drain for the toilet and drain for the shower were already installed. He explained that there was no piping for the sink, toilet or shower and that the respondent had tapped into the water lines to do this work. Little asked if there had been inspections done on this job. Arrigo confirmed this and provided a copy of the inspection results to the Board. Massey asked for clarification on why the building permit did not list a licensed plumber. Lee stated that he was not sure but thought that perhaps the assumption was that there would only be fixture installation, in which case a licensed plumber would not be required. Based on the description that was provided by Arrigo of the plumbing work that was performed, Lee mentioned that a licensed plumber should have been used. Hartmann asked Arrigo if he actually saw the respondent perform the plumbing work. Arrigo confirmed this. He explained that part of the work included moving the shower drain approximately a foot which the respondent dug out and moved. Arrigo stated that he had an issue with the respondent on this part of the project at one point because one of the pipes that had been installed had a kink in it. According to Arrigo, the respondent stated that the kink did not present any problems since the work had passed inspection. Massey asked for clarification on the valuation and whether or not it included the cost of the carpet, finishes, etc. Arrigo confirmed that the valuation did not include costs for these items and stated that he was required to purchase these items separately. Massey stated that he had received clarification from staff on what items made up the building valuation and that it was his understanding that the value was supposed to reflect the full replacement cost of the project, including labor, materials and profit. Fielder asked for clarification on whether or not the Board was empowered to deal with contractor behavioral issues. Lee answered that the Board can deal only with the violations that are included in the licensing ordinance. Fielder instructed Board Members to consider only those violations that had been set out in the summary document for this case. BRB June 29,2000 Page 10 Hartmann stated that the record of inspections that had been provided by Arrigo should be kept on file as evidence for this case. Lee answered that staff will ensure this. Massey asked for clarification on whether or not the building permit that was obtained in this case would have covered the plumbing work had a licensed plumber been listed. Lee answered that a home improvement contractor is not authorized to do plumbing work, and they are not a general contractor, but, typically, staff has allowed plumbing and/or electrical work to be added to a permit as long as the appropriate licensed contractor is indicated. Hartmann asked for clarification from Arrigo on whether the contract he had with the respondent was a labor -only contract. Amigo answered that the respondent provided labor and materials such as wood and drywall, and that, in addition to the amount required by the contract, he (Arrigo) was required to purchase paint, carpet, bathroom fixtures, etc. Board Members briefly discussed how they wanted to proceed with this case. Little mentioned that he believed that there was willful disregard of the building code in this case based on the facts that the contract from the respondent set out that his company would be responsible for plumbing work, and that the amount of the contract exceeded the value allowed by his license. Little mentioned that he was also thought that failure to comply with a building code, fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining a permit and performance of work for which a license was required without having the required license were violations that also applied in this case. It was his feeling that the respondent's license should be suspended until such time that he appeared before the Board to speak to these violations. Little made a motion on findings of fact as follows: That Brock Wagner, d/b/a Home Solutions was in violation of the following City licensing regulations: "(1) Willful and deliberate disregard of the building code or any other code adopted by the city related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the certificate holder or license holder set forth in this Article; (2) Failure to comply with any provision of the Code related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the certificate holder or license holder as set forth in this Article; (4) Misrepresentation of a material fact by a license holder or supervisor certificate holder in obtaining a building permit, license or supervisor certificate, or fraud in obtaining a building permit, license or supervisor certificate; and (8) Performance of work for which a license is required without a valid, current license; " Massey seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Hartmann, Little, Fielder, Massey Nays: None The motion passed unanimously. BRB June 29, 2000 Page 11 Little asked Arrigo for clarification on whether or not the respondent finished the work he had contracted for in an appropriate fashion and on what portions of the work, if any, had to be hired out to another contractor in order to get the job completed. Arrigo answered that at the time he and the respondent had the payment dispute, the work that had been finished included the framing, the installation of all of the drywall and the installation of some of the doorjambs. Arrigo stated that at the time the door jambs were hung, he realized that there were some problems because there were large gaps on both sides of the doorjambs. Amigo also reiterated the problems that had occurred with the trim. Arrigo explained that he hired another contractor to come in and fix the doors so that they would hang correctly, and that he had him remove all of the trim, stain it, reinstall it, and complete some remaining finish work. Arrigo mentioned that at the advice of his attorney, he retained an independent inspection agency to do a separate inspection prior to hiring the second contractor to finish the project. According to Arrigo, the report provided by the inspection agency referenced the unfinished trim, problems with the doors, etc. Little stated that a copy of the independent inspection report should be added to the documentation for this case. Arrigo stated that he would arrange for a copy of this to be sent to staff. Fielder asked if the inspectors routinely check for plumbing cards similar to the checking that is done for framers. Lee confirmed that the inspectors do this frequently. Board Members briefly discussed the option of suspending respondent's license. Massey made a motion to suspend the license of Brock Wagner, d/b/a Home Solutions from obtaining any new permits until such time that the respondent appeared before the Building Review Board to speak to the violations that had been found in this case. Massey clarified that the respondent would be allowed to continue any projects that he currently had obtained permits for. Fielder seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Hartmann, Little, Fielder, Massey Nays: None The motion passed unanimously. CONTRACTOR HEARING — James Ladd, d/b/a Advanced Plumbing This item was rescheduled due to a conflict of interest of one of the Board Members which would have left the Board without a quorum. This item was rescheduled to the July, 2000 agenda. 8. CONTRACTOR HEARING — Leonard Jones, d/b/a American Services, Inc.: Lee provided an overview of the allegations in this case, as follows: 1) On March 3, 2000, a Stop Work Order was issued for work being done by American Services at 3608 Rockaway Street. No permit had been obtained for the work being performed. A letter was sent to American Services on May 11, 2000 informing them of the violation and clarifying that further violations could result in a hearing before the Building Review Board. BRB June 29, 2000 Page 12 2) On March 16, 2000, a second Stop Work Order was issued for work being done by American Services at 823 E. Elizabeth Street, because the plumbers on -site could not produce a valid State of Colorado plumbing license. A second letter was sent to American Services on May 11, 2000 informing them of the violation and clarifying to the contractor that further violations could result in a hearing before the Building Review Board. 3) On April 10, 2000, a third Stop Work Order was issued for work being done by American Services at I101 Canvasback Drive. None of the electricians on the job site could produce a valid State of Colorado electrical license and no permit had been obtained for the work that was being performed. A third letter was sent to American Services on May 11, 2000 informing them of the violation and clarifying to the contractor that further violations could result in a hearing before the Building Review Board. 4) On May 10, 2000, a fourth Stop Work Order was issued for work being done by American Services at 2407 S. College Avenue. No permit had been obtained for the work being performed. A fourth letter was sent to American Services on May 11, 2000 informing them of the violation and clarifying to the contractor that further violations could result in a hearing before the Building Review Board. Lee explained that the violation notices for these instances were not set out until May 11, 2000, due to the work load in the office. It was at that time that staff realized that four violations had already accumulated. Lee further explained that on June 19, 2000, while in the process of doing inspections, Tom Cushman, a City Building Inspector, observed an American Services employee unloading building material at 3618 Mariner Lane. According to the inspector, the American Services employee spotted his City vehicle and promptly reloaded the building material and left the job site. On Wednesday, June 21, 2000, the homeowner at 3618 Mariner Lane came to the Building & Zoning department to obtain a permit. The homeowner spoke with the inspector and confirmed that American Services had done work prior to obtaining a permit. The inspector visited the site immediately after the building permit had been obtained and verified that the work had been completed. Lee noted that a summary of this occurrence from inspector Cushman was attached. Lee stated that staff believed that Leonard Jones, d/b/a American Services, had committed the following acts in violation of Section 15-158(f), Section 15-172(a), and Section 15-306(b) of the City's licensing regulations: Section 15-158(f): "(1) Willful and deliberate disregard of the building code or any other code adopted by the city related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the certificate holder or license holder set forth in this Article; (2) Failure to comply with any provision of the Code related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the certificate holder or license holder as set forth in this Article; and (3) Failure to comply with any lawful order of the Building Official; and (6) Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be performed;" BRB June 29, 2000 Page 13 Section 15-172(a) (4) Failure to provide supervision and maintain licenses as required by the state Electrical Board for all apprentice and journeyman electricians; Section 15-306(b) (6) Failure to provide supervision and maintain licenses as required by the state Examining Board of Plumbers for all apprentice and journeyman plumbers. Lee noted that this contractor had multiple contractor licenses. He then mentioned that in addition to the above instances, staff had received a phone call from Maureen Dempsey, an earlier client of the respondent, who had a water heater installed in 1996, for which no permit had been obtained. A letter from the complainant was provided to Board Members, as well as a second letter from Dempsey's father, which summarized the issues that were of concern with the water heater installation, which letter was sent to American Services in January, 1996. Board Members took time to review this information. Respondent, Leonard Jones, addressed the Board. He stated that American Services was a very reputable company and that his staff does nothing knowingly against the code or any other regulations. Jones stated that out of all of the allegations that had been presented, he was guilty of only one of them and acknowledged that he had not obtain the required permit prior to the time that the inspector noticed the work. Jones explained that every morning his company reviews projects, writes checks for the permits, and sends staff to the building department to obtain the required permits. Jones stated that sometimes he is the person responsible for actually obtaining permits and once in a while he gets sidetracked and obtaining the permits gets delayed. He stated that this is what happened on one of the occurrences that had been presented. Jones stated that his company was not perfect and acknowledged that they make mistakes. With regard to the issue being alleged by Maureen Dempsey, Jones explained that he had been out of town, had just received the information, and had no idea what it related to. It was his opinion that this item should not be considered since he had not had time to investigate what had happened. He stated that he planned to follow up on this issue and would work to resolve the issues. With regard to 2407 S. College Avenue, Jones mentioned that this project was a tenant finish for the Vision Center. Jones stated that the general contractor for the job called his company and let them know that the permit was issued and that they simply needed to go to the city and pick it up. The general contractor, according to Jones, directed them to go ahead and stock the job, which is what his company was doing when the inspector stopped by. Jones explained that the inspector stated that because American Services employees were on a scaffold, they were working. Jones stated that the actual situation was that his employees had stocked the sheet metal, and were then using an existing scaffold that was available on site to measure the size of the ducts coming through the roof so that the sheet metal shop could get started building the necessary attachments. It was Jones' opinion that his company had done nothing wrong in this instance. With regard to 1101 Canvasback Drive, Jones acknowledged that he was responsible for not obtaining this permit. He stated that he had the check in his pocket and was on his way to the City to obtain the permit but got sidetracked. Jones mentioned that he holds a master electrician's license and was going to supervise the job once he returned to the site. He sent an apprentice BRB June 29, 2000 Page 14 employee to the job site who would be assisting him with the job when he returned. According to Jones, the employee was a registered apprentice employee with the State. It was explained that the inspector arrived at the job site prior to the time that Jones arrived at the site to supervise the work with the required permit in hand. Jones stated that the permit was obtained on the same day that the inspector issued the Stop Work Order. With regard to 823 East Elizabeth, Jones explained that he had a licensed residential plumber assigned to this job, along with an apprentice plumbing employee. According to Jones, these employees worked through their lunch hour so that they would be ready for the inspection scheduled later that afternoon. Jones stated that at approximately 2:00 p.m. his licensed plumber walked around the corner to a restaurant to get a sandwich. The apprentice employee stayed on the job site and ate his lunch and was present at the time the building inspector arrived. Jones acknowledged that at the time the inspector arrived there was not a licensed plumber on the site. It was Jones' opinion that his company had done nothing wrong in this instance except for perhaps not having the apprentice employee accompany the licensed plumber employee to lunch. With regard to 3608 Rockaway Street, Jones explained that he was once again responsible for obtaining this permit, had the check in his pocket and was on his way to the city to obtain the permit, and then got sidetracked. He acknowledged that they were guilty in this instance, but stated that a permit was obtained the same day that the Stop Work Order was issued. Jones stated that his company never shirks its responsibility. If there are issues with a customer, according to Jones, they follow through until the issues are resolved. Lee asked for clarification on whether the respondent recalled receiving a letter from Dempsey's father which summarized the installation discrepancies. Jones answered that he could not remember for sure. It was Jones' recollection that Dempsey's father assisted her with the purchase of her house and was there when the water heater was installed. He vaguely recalled the installation, but did not recollect that his company had anything to do with the gas line that was referenced in the letter. Lee asked Jones if he remembered responding to this letter. Jones was unsure. Lee informed the Board that staff could find no record of a permit being issued for this project. Lee asked Jones if he was on site at the 823 E. Elizabeth project to actually know whether or not plumbing work was actually being performed by the apprentice employee. Jones answered that he was not on site when the inspector arrived and confirmed that he was reporting what his employees had told him. According to Jones, when the inspector called him to let him know that no licensed plumber was on site, he immediately contacted the plumber by radio and found that he was at the restaurant. Jones stated that he instructed his employee to get back to the site since the inspector was there. He also stated that he went directly to the site himself to try to resolve the issue. Jones mentioned that the homeowner on this project was not going to obtain a permit for the basement finish project and that he told the homeowner that he would not do the plumbing work without a permit. He stated that he obtained a plumbing permit and, it was Jones' opinion, that this is how the homeowner got caught for doing a basement finish without a permit. Jones thought that the inspector was upset because there was not a permit for the basement finish and, because he was upset, went ahead and issued a violation notice on something that otherwise would have probably been ignored. Lee explained that the issue in this case was whether or not an apprentice employee was performing plumbing work without the supervision of a licensed plumber. Jones answered that this employee may have finished his lunch and then went back to work, he was unsure. He stated that his company has been involved in very large construction jobs where a journeyman is not always around and the apprentice employees are doing all of the work. Although the journeyman may be on the job, he is not always in direct supervision of the BRB June 29, 2000 Page 15 apprentice employees. In this case, it was Jones' opinion, that just because his licensed plumber was off the job for 30 minutes to eat lunch, this did not fairly depict that his apprentice employee was unsupervised. Lee asked Jones if he had received any response from the State regarding this issue. Jones answered that he had and that the State did not find that any violation had occurred. Jones reiterated that his company was not perfect and stated that they try very hard to conform to the City's rules and regulations. He mentioned that they have implemented procedures in their office to assure that no work is performed without having a permit in hand. Jones explained that on jobs where no permit has or will be obtained, his company will not do the work. Hartmann asked for clarification on the project at 3618 Mariner Lane. Jones stated that his company contracted with Powers Custom Construction to put a laundry room in a basement at this address. According to Jones, the customer needed the work done immediately. Jones explained that he had a meeting with the owner of the house and the general contractor and informed them that he would not start the work until a permit had been obtained. According to Jones, both the homeowner and the general contractor told him that a permit would be obtained the next morning and that he should plan on starting the work then. Jones mentioned that his company started the work the next morning, an inspector arrived and asked for a permit, and he found that the homeowner had not obtained the permit as was promised. Jones acknowledged that he was guilty of starting the work without assuring that a permit had been obtained. Jones stated that he changed his company's procedures after that incident to require that no employee start work without assuring that a permit had actually been obtained. Little mentioned that he has had very good experiences with this company and noted that the integrity of the company was not in question, but that the Board was charged with enforcing applicable building and other city codes and assuring that contractors comply. It was his suggestion that since this was the first time this contractor had come before the Board for violations that a letter of reprimand be issued in this case as opposed to any suspensions or other forms of disciplinary action. Jones closed by stating that his company had recently hired an employee who was responsible for key entry and obtaining building permits. According to Jones, his employees have been instructed to not leave for a job unless they have the required permit. He mentioned that the next employee who performed work on a job without assuring that there was a permit would end up unemployed. Lee closed by stating that although violation letters had not been sent to the respondent until May, 2000, with the exception of the job done on Mariner Lane, a Stop Work Order was posted at the time of the violation on all of the other projects informing the respondent of the violations at the time that they occurred. Lee also stated that it appeared to him that the respondent had put in place some contingencies in his company to alleviate these problems from recurring, similar to what had been done by other contractors who had appeared before the Board. Fielder added that he heard more respect for the system from Mr. Jones than had been heard from other contractors that had appeared before the Board. Massey asked if there had been any previous action taken against this contractor by the Board. Lee answered that there had been none that he was aware of. BRB June 29,2000 Page 16 Massey made a motion on finding of fact as follows: That Leonard Jones, d/b/a American Services, Inc., was in violation of the following City licensing regulations: "(2) Failure to comply with any provision of the Code related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the certificate holder or license holder as set forth in this Article; and (6) Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be performed;" Fielder seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Hartmann, Little, Fielder, Massey Nays: None The motion passed unanimously. Massey made a motion that a letter of reprimand be placed in this contractor's file documenting the violations that had occurred. Fielder seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Hartmann, Little, Fielder, Massey Nays: None The motion passed unanimously. 9. OTHER BUSINESS: Update on Licensing Revisions Lee mentioned that the license revision task group met the night before and got embedded in the conundrum of enforcement issues if employee identification was not required. He stated that the group discussed various options, but that nothing conclusive had been decided. Lee noted that this item was currently scheduled to go before City Council on August 15", which would mean that a recommendation would be needed by the Board at the July meeting. Lee thought that this schedule might be too ambitious. Lee also noted that a second public outreach session was scheduled for the evening of July 17th from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. in Council Chambers and that staff would notify Board Members if that date changed. Little mentioned that he received a question from Mayor Martinez on the objectives of the proposed licensing revisions. He asked if staff would draft a memo to the Mayor explaining what the purpose of the licensing revision task force was and what objectives were expected to be accomplished as a result of the revisions. Lee stated that he would follow up on this issue. Meeting adjourned at 3:15 p.m