HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 10/28/1999L
Council Liaison: Kurt Kastein II Staff Liaison: Felix Lee (221-6760)
A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, October 28, 1999, in the Council
Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building, at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Charles Fielder, Susan Kreul-Froseth, Al Hauck, Gene Little, and Bradley Massey
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Rudy Hansch, and Thomas Hartmann
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Felix Lee, Director of Building & Zoning
Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
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:
A motion was made by Board Member Kreul-Froseth to approve the Minutes from the September 30,
1999 meeting. Board Member Massey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously and
the Minutes from the September 30, 1999 meeting were approved as submitted.
3. BUILDING CODE HEARING — LARIMER COUNTY:
Chairperson Fielder explained the procedures that would be used for the hearing.
Bob Brashears of Reilly Johnson Architecture addressed the Board. He mentioned that there are a
series of additions that are currently be built to the Larimer County detention facility. Reilly Johnson
Architecture designed these additions. He presented information relative to this hearing, as follows:
The additions that are being constructed to the detention facility, consist of housing units, each of
which has a "day room" which is a large central space, and inmate cells adjacent to the day rooms.
The day rooms are only occupied by inmates or officers. There is no public accessibility to any of
these spaces.
BRB
Oct. 28, 1999
Page 2
Near each of the day rooms, the cells located on two floors, with the upper floor being a mezzanine
level. It is the guardrails that exist on the mezzanine level that are at issue in this case. The
guardrails, as constructed, are 12" apart. The UBC states that in a commercial or industrial
application, guardrails can be constructed in such a way that a 12" sphere cannot pass through. This
is what has been done at the detention facility.
It was Brashears' understanding that the City of Fort Collins has amendments to the UBC which state
that only a 4" sphere, maximum, can fit through the railings. The Fort Collins amendments do allow
a 12" sphere in certain building occupancies; however, it was determined that the detention facility
did not fall within those building occupancies.
Brashears mentioned that because the spaces in question at the detention facility are not accessible by
the public, there is no danger of a small child or small person slipping through the railings. He noted
that his firm has done many county jails and stated that they have been allowed to use the 12" sphere
rule on all such projects.
The 12" spacing is necessary for the security of the facility and for the security of the officers running
the facility. Jails are frequently not fully addressed by the building code. There are certain
compromises that are made from an egress or building code safety point of view, in order to provide
adequate safety and security of the facility given the fact that it houses inmates. The 12" spacing is
used so that the officers have a good view up into the mezzanine level. According to the Appellant,
as an officer gets closer to the mezzanine level, and is looking up through it to view an inmate, close -
spaced railings begin to appear solid. The goal of the 12" spacing is to keep the guardrails as
transparent as possible to avoid any blind spots where an inmate could assault another inmate, or
could assault an officer and possibly not be seen.
Brashears offered to let Board Members view building section and floor plans that he had available.
He reiterated that the detention center is a facility where the public would not be at risk using the 12"
sphere rule, and that his firm has used this building practice successfully for many years now.
Felix Lee presented the City's position relative to this appeal. He asked Brashears for clarification on
whether the rails were installed horizontally. Brashears confirmed this and added that there are
vertical rails approximately 5' apart.
Lee stated that it is the City's position that the 12" spacing violates the 1991 and 1997 Uniform
Building Codes as published, as well as the local City ordinance. The Code requires that there be a
guardrail which restricts a 4" sphere from passing through, with the exception of non-public areas in
commercial and industrial occupancies. It is the City's position that the occupancy in this case is
institutional.
In institutional -type occupancies, whether it be a jail or medical facility, where involuntarily or
voluntarily, the occupants' liberties are restrained, the occupants must rely on the system and the
building itself to protect them from injury. In this case, given the fact that the rails are 12" apart, with
intermediate supports placed 5' apart, a relatively large person could pass through the railings. Staff
maintains that residents of these facilities are entitled to the same protection as anyone else in terms
of a building and the safety features that are built in. The building code, according to staff, is a
minimum life safety compilation of regulations, and everyone is entitled to the protection it affords.
Lee summarized the Board's decision authority in this case as described by the building code.
According to Sections 105.1 through 105.4 of the 1997 UBC as amended by the City, in order to rule
in favor of an appellant, the Board must determine either one of the following: (a) that the building
BRB
Oct. 28, 1999
Page 3
official's interpretation is "erroneous", or (b) "...an alternate design, alternate materials, or the
alternate methods proposed by the appellant are equivalent to those prescribed by this code
considering structural strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability, safety and any other pertinent
factors." Should the Board decide the case under item (b), according to the building code, "the Board
shall require sufficient evidence be submitted to substantiate any claims made regarding the proposed
alternate design, alternate materials and/or alternate methods of construction."
Brashears asked Lee for clarification on the exception in the code for commercial and industrial
occupancies which are not accessible to the public, and how the jail differs from this. Lee answered
that the jail is considered an institutional occupancy.
Lee directed the Board to the exhibits that were provided in packets. Lee stated that when the project
plans were reviewed by Tyree Associates, they highlighted the provision that the building code
generally requires a maximum of 4" spacing for guardrails. He also stated that the plans that were
submitted to the City show 4"welded wire mesh as an intermediate barrier on the guardrails.
Brashears answered that they went through a value engineering process that changed the plans. He
mentioned that he spent considerable time discussing the new spacing requirements with Building &
Zoning staff and obtained approval for this.
Lee answered that this change would have required his approval, which was not given. Brashears
answered that he was not informed that he needed Lee's approval.
Hauck asked Brashears if he had documentation that this had been approved by City staff. Brashears
stated that the approval was verbal and that he sent a letter to Building & Zoning summarizing the
conversations that had taken place. Hauck asked Brashears if he had a copy of that letter. Brashears
mentioned that he could try to locate it if needed.
Hauck asked for clarification on the timing of the changes. Brashears answered that the changes were
incorporated after the bids were received in an effort to reduce costs and to respond to some of the
concerns that the Sheriffs Department had. Hauck asked why the welded wire mesh requirement
was changed. Brashears mentioned that it was changed both to save money and because the owner
wanted greater visibility between the railings.
Hauck asked for clarification on the rails that are currently existing. Brashears confirmed that the
existing guardrails are 12" horizontal rails that have vertical supports every 5'. He added that the rails
are constructed of 1 %z" steel tubes that are 12" on center and that the clear spacing between the rails
is approximately I 1".
Kreul-Froseth asked if there were similar guardrails in place in the original facility. Brashears did not
have information on this. He mentioned that the majority of the existing facility did not have two -
level day rooms or mezzanine levels. A minimum security addition was added approximately 7-8
years ago; however, Brashears was unsure if there was similar guardrail construction in that addition.
Kreul-Froseth asked for clarification on the other detention facilities that have been done by
Brashears' firm as to whether they included a similar configuration of baluster/rail. Brashears
confirmed this. He mentioned that he had a photograph available of the detention facilities that were
done in Montrose County which opened about a year ago which contained this typical arrangement of
guardrail. Kreul-Froseth asked for clarification on the purpose of this design. Brashears answered
that the 12" design allows for greater visibility for the officers as they look through the guardrails.
BRB
Oct. 28, 1999
Page 4
Brashears also noted that Tyree Associates was used for plan review on the Montrose County facility
and that they accepted the 12" spacing in Montrose.
Kreul-Froseth asked if any alternative designs had been considered. Brashears mentioned that more
of the 1 %s" tubes could be added, but that this concerns the Sheriff's office because of the reduced
visibility that would be caused. He mentioned that another alternative would be to tack -weld wire
mesh to the existing railings which would obscure the visibility of the officers less than the first
alternative, but would be time consuming and would affect the completion date of the jail.
Massey questioned how 2" bars at 12" on center would obscure the officers' view less than 4 x 4
mesh. Brashears mentioned that 4 x 4 mesh, as you get closer to it, begins to read as a solid plane.
Massey asked for more specifics on this. Brashears provided clarification.
Kreul-Froseth asked for clarification on whether the stairs had open or closed risers. Brashears
answered that the risers are closed with a perforated steel plate.
Hauck mentioned that the Board has fairly constrained decision criteria. The first criteria would be
the possibility that the building official's interpretation was erroneous. He asked Brashears if it was
his opinion that the building official's interpretation was erroneous in this case. Brashears answered
that in the past they have had detention facilities classified under the exceptions in the building code
for commercial and industrial occupancies that would allow 12" spacing. Hauck mentioned that staff
is making the claim that the detention facility is a Group I, Division 3 occupancy and asked if
Brashears agreed. Brashears confirmed that he agreed with this.
Hauck read the description that exists in the code for commercial and industrial occupancies and
asked Brashears if the detention center fit into that category. Brashears mentioned that he was not
saying that the detention facility was either a commercial or industrial occupancy, only that in the
past, the detention facilities that have been completed by his firm have been accepted by the local
code authorities as fitting into the exception for commercial/industrial occupancies.
Hauck asked if the language "commercial and industrial -type occupancies" was included in the City
amendments to the UBC. Lee confirmed this and pointed out that this language, in an effort to be
consistent with regional jurisdictions, was adopted as it was written in the 1997 UBC. Lee added that
this language is virtually unchanged from the 1991 UBC.
Hauck asked Brashears if it was his opinion that the detention facility was a commercial or industrial
use. Brashears stated that the detention facility was clearly not a commercial or industrial use, but he
was arguing the fact that the jail was not accessible to the public and that latitude had been given to
his firm on other detention facility projects which allowed them to include these facilities under the
exception granted to commercial and industrial occupancies.
Hauck asked Brashears if the issue of his appeal was the fact that the City building official had made
an erroneous decision, as opposed to the fact that alternate plans were being submitted for
consideration. Brashears confirmed this.
Little asked Brashears for clarification on why the guardrail system specifications did not reflect the
12" spacing exception at the time the construction plans were originally submitted. Brashears
answered that the spacing had not been thoroughly discussed with the owner prior to that time. This
issue was brought up during the bid process.
• • BRB
Oct. 28, 1999
Page 5
Little asked for clarification on why, when similar 12" spacing guardrail systems had been used for
other detention facilities, the plans for this detention facility did not reflect this. Brashears mentioned
that drawings from a separate project with different parameters were used for this project and that this
detail was overlooked.
Kreul-Froseth asked for clarification on whether the appellant is required to provide an alternate
proposal, or whether the Board can consider the current proposal, unchanged, as an alternate
proposal. Lee answered that it is really up to the Board to consider whether a proposal is equivalent
to what is prescribed by the code. Kreul-Froseth mentioned that she saw things in the existing design
that satisfies the code such as structural strength, effectiveness and pertinent factors, i.e. visibility,
which relates to safety issues in a jail setting. Her concern, however, was that the 12" space at the
bottom of the guardrail may not keep someone from falling through if they slipped, fell, were pushed,
etc. She asked Brashears if this issue had been addressed. Brashears asked if she was recommending
that the 4" sphere requirement be done on the lower portion of the guardrail as opposed to the entire
height of the guardrail. Kreul-Froseth confirmed this. Brashears mentioned that doing this is an
option they could pursue.
Massey mentioned that the detail shown in the drawings shows a plate that sticks up 4" above the top
of the slab. Brashears confirmed that the plate is existing. Massey asked for confirmation on the
distance between the plate and the first guardrail. Brashears answered that there is an approximate
I I" space from the top of the 4" plate to the bottom of the first horizontal railing. Brashears
mentioned that it would be much easier for them, at this point in time, to solve the problem by making
changes to only the lower portion of the guardrail space. Kreul-Froseth asked about how this would
affect visibility. Brashears mentioned that anything is going to lessen the visibility, but thought that
the wire mesh might be the best option.
Fielder mentioned that he was not as concerned that someone would roll through the bottom space as
he was that a fight might break out and someone could pass through any of the 12" guardrail spaces.
Brashears stated that his firm had been designing jails and prisons for approximately 12 years and that
they had not heard of anyone slipping through the guardrails.
Kreul-Froseth asked for clarification on the code changes that reduced the spacing from a 6" sphere to
a 4" sphere. Lee answered that the discussion came about based on anthropomorphic measurements
of children's heads. He believed that a number representing the mean dimension of a toddler's head,
at age 3, was chosen as the new code requirement of 4".
Brashears mentioned that no toddlers would be allowed in this space. Hauck stated that the intent of
the code is to prevent anyone from passing through the rails. At 12" spacing, someone could feasibly
pass through the rails whether by another person's effort or by accident. In light of the intent of the
code, and actual reading of the code, Hauck did not feel that the Board had much lee way to authorize
a variance of the code. Hauck also mentioned that he did not believe that there was an erroneous
interpretation of the code on the part of the building official. Massey agreed that there was not an
erroneous interpretation of the code on the part of the building official.
Fielder provided opportunity for closing statements. Brashears mentioned that given the constraints
placed on the Board, he understood the Board's stance. He stated that it is unfortunate that the Board
did not have more latitude to interpret, judge and make exceptions that more readily fit the real world.
The Appellant stated that the real world in a jail requires that the safety and security of the officers be
of paramount concern. This is accomplished through minimizing inmate to inmate assaults and
inmate to officer assaults. He believed that increasing visibility was one way of assuring this safety.
Although the current design may only be allowed by varying the building code, this was done in an
BRB
Oct. 28, 1999
Page 6
effort to increase the safety and security of the facility, the officers, and to reduce the County's
liability.
Lee mentioned that he understood that there are security concerns at the detention facility. However,
there has been no documentation provided from any security agency or from any study that may have
been done that suggests that the wire mesh that was proposed was a visibility concern. He also
mentioned that staff has not been provided with any other options that might provide some equivalent
level of safety, and felt that there may be other ways to maintain visual surveillance in the area.
Lee mentioned that his first charge is to assure safety for the occupants of the building, whether they
be inmates or officers travelling on the mezzanine walkways. All occupants are entitled to the level
of safety that the building code prescribes, as written.
Fielder mentioned that he also was concerned with the safety of the inmates. He made a motion to
deny this appeal based on the fact that the Board did not find the building official's interpretation of
the code in this case to be erroneous, and because no alternate designs were submitted for
consideration. Massey seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Yeas: Little, Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey
Nays: None
The motion carried.
4. LICENSE APPEAL — RANDY RICHARDSON, DB/A RICHARDSON CONSTRUCTION
Appellant, Randy Richardson, addressed the Board. He was asking for approval from the Board to
retain his C-I contractor's license.
Richardson mentioned that his Class C-1 license was issued to him in August, 1994. He has held his
license in high regard since that time, without receiving any letters of reprimand or other disciplinary
action. When he attempted to renew his license, City staff notified him that his license had been
issued in error and that there was not adequate supporting information in the file to allow him to keep
the C-1 license. City staff informed him that his Class D license would be reissued instead of the
Class C-1 license.
Richardson provided clarification on some of the construction projects he had completed. He
mentioned that the project done for Mort's Bagel Shop was a very complex project. He was required
to convert the building from an auto repair center to the retail center that currently exists. Richardson
mentioned that the project did not require construction outside of the confines of the building;
however, everything inside of the building came out, including much of the concrete. Richardson
stated that the project went way beyond the scope of a residential license.
The Moore Animal Hospital project also did not require construction outside of the confines of the
strip mall; however, an adjacent unit was added to the hospital. The project required wall removals,
some structural construction, etc. Richardson mentioned that he did not have a license of sufficient
scope to enable him to obtain the permit for this project, so another general contractor obtained the
permit, and Richardson worked solely on his own to finish the project.
Richardson mentioned that he was also responsible for doing a major remodel to Countryside Vet
Clinic which included a building addition, as well as renovation to the existing structure.
• • BRB
Oct. 28, 1999
Page 7
Richardson stated that he had been in this trade since 1969. It is his source of livelihood. Richardson
hoped that whether or not he ever had future need of his C-1 license, the Board would allow him to
keep it.
Lee provided information relative to this appeal. He confirmed that Richardson was issued a C-1
license, apparently erroneously, by a member of staff. Lee stated that Richardson went before the
Building Review Board in February of 1995 for a license upgrade to a Class C-1. The minutes from
that meeting reflect that a decision on Richardson's appeal was postponed until further references
were received. The case never went back to the Board to be re -heard.
The projects that were submitted in support of Applicant's C-1 license, including the projects for the
bagel shop, South Kinko's, Moore Animal Hospital and CB & Potts, all fall within the scope of the
Class E, non-structural commercial tenant finish, license. The Countryside Vet Clinic project does
meet the minimum requirements of the Class C-1 license.
Lee asked Richardson for clarification on whether he was an employee for the general contractor who
obtained the permit for the Moore Animal Hospital project. Richardson answered that he was not an
employee of the contractor; he acted as a subcontractor. Lee asked Richardson why he did not obtain
the permit on his own. Richardson answered that he did not have a commercial license at that time.
Hauck asked for clarification on why the copy of the license that was issued to Mr. Richardson was
dated November, 1994, when he did not have a hearing before the Building Review Board to discuss
an upgrade to his license until February of 1995. Lee answered that his best guess was that staff
erroneously authorized an upgrade to Mr. Richardson's license and that at the time the license was
actually issued, the license was given expiration dates that corresponded with the already existing
Class D license.
Fielder asked Richardson for clarification on why he worked as a C-1 contractor after the Board
postponed his license request due to a lack of references. Richardson answered that he did not work
as a C-1 contractor until his license was intact. He mentioned that he did not do any of the
commercial work on his own; he did the work as a subcontractor for other general contractors who
held the appropriate license. Richardson stated that he was responsible for all of the work that was
done on these projects, he would coordinate subcontractors, etc. The license holder who had obtained
the permit would inspect the work that was done and meet with the building inspectors.
Fielder asked for clarification on whether the C-1 license was issued to Richardson after the February
Board hearing. Richardson confirmed that this was the case. Lee noted that staff apparently accepted
the letters that were submitted after the Board hearing as sufficient documentation for the C-1 license,
and issued the upgraded license. He reiterated that the license expiration dates appeared to have been
back -dated to correspond with Richardson's D license. Lee added that the experience documented in
the letters that were received was not sufficient for the C-1 license. The projects fell within the scope
of the Class E license. A staff person appears to have acted on their own volition in determining that
the projects were sufficient in scope for the C-1 license and issued the license without rescheduling an
appearance before the Board, or without getting appropriate approval from the building official.
Massey asked for clarification on whether the project for Countryside Vet Clinic met the
requirements for a C-1 project. Lee confirmed this. Massey asked Richardson if he obtained the
permit for that project. Richardson confirmed this.
Hauck asked Richardson if he had done any other projects besides the Countryside Vet Clinic that
would qualify for the C-1 license. Richardson mentioned that most of the work he has done has been
BRB
Oct. 28, 1999
Page 8
residential. He stated that he has also done some commercial tenant finish work in Loveland. Hauck
asked Richardson for confirmation on the number of projects he has completed that would qualify for
the C-1 license under Richardson Construction. Richardson answered that he has only completed the
one project that has already been submitted.
Little asked Lee if there was a way that Richardson could come back to the Board and ask for
permission to construct a specific project that would enable him to gain some additional C-1
experience in the event this type of opportunity presented itself to him. Lee mentioned that this
would be within the Board's purview to allow this. Little encouraged the Board to allow this
opportunity to Mr. Richardson based on his demonstrated quality of workmanship.
Massey asked Richardson if he had taken any tests in any other jurisdictions that would be equivalent
to the Ft. Collins' C-1 exam. Richardson mentioned that he had not. Massey asked Richardson if he
had taken any seminars or had additional educational experience that the Board could consider.
Richardson mentioned that he completed a four year apprenticeship with the Carpenters Local Union
from 1969-1973. He had also been an instructor at Front Range Community College where he taught
classes on blueprint reading, estimating, and carpentry skills to secondary students.
Kreul-Froseth mentioned that the minutes from the February, 1995 board meeting appeared to reflect
that Richardson passed the C-1 exam. Richardson answered that he had taken the City's D-I exam,
but not the C-1 exam.
Richardson was confused about how a license could be issued and then five years later, after having
no problems, the license could be withdrawn after a review of the file. He did not feel that there was
any just cause for his C-I license to be withdrawn.
Kreul-Froseth mentioned that there might be some room for compromise in this situation and if
Richardson had a future opportunity to complete a C-1 job, with his demonstrated level of experience,
the Board might consider granting a one-time exemption to his D license to allow him to complete the
project. Richardson mentioned that he would appreciate this, but thought it would be more fair that
for contractors that have been put in the same situation as he is, where a license was erroneously
issued by staff, that the contractor be allowed to keep the license unless there are legitimate reasons
not to allow this.
In closing statements, Lee mentioned that the test that had been taken by Richardson was a Class D
test based on the 1976 UBC. Lee stated that it was somewhat troubling that Richardson admitted
working without a proper contractor's license, which is a clear violation of the City's ordinance. In
the past, experience that has come from a project in which the contractor violated the regulations has
not be recognized. Mr. Richardson has not taken the Class C-1 test and has not demonstrated
adequate experience within the scope of the C-1 license, even though he has had the benefit of a C-1
license that was issued to him in error. Lee did not feel that this justified supporting reissuance of a
Class C-1 license. There is no entitlement clause in the licensing ordinance. Lee stated that if the
person does not qualify for the license, they should not be issued the license unless there are specific
circumstances, i.e., education and training or other experience that the Board determines is
equivalent, or there is demonstrated hardship that can be justified.
• BRB
Oct. 28, 1999
Page 9
Little asked for clarification on the invalid projects Lee had referred to and on whether Richardson
had completed a valid C-1 project. Lee confirmed that Richardson had completed one valid C-1
project, but added that Richardson testified that he had done work outside of the scope of his D
license without having a valid license to do such work.
Little made a motion to: 1) deny Richardson's appeal to maintain his Class C-1 license; and 2) to
allow Richardson to submit to the Board a request for an exception to his D 1 license, on a case by
case basis, that would enable him to construct projects that are within the scope of a C-1 license in an
effort to allow him the opportunity to obtain the necessary experience that would eventually support
the issuance of a C-1 license based on his solid past performance on completed projects, and based on
the fact that the C-1 license is not critical to his financial well-being since Richardson stated that he
was unsure if he would have need for the C-I license in the future. Kreul-Froseth seconded the
motion.
Hauck asked if it was Little's intent to have Richardson successfully pass a C-1 exam prior to
applying for an exemption to construct a C-1 project. Little mentioned that the Board has, in the past,
determined that all of the requirements must be met prior to any license being issued. Little
mentioned that he would support having Mr. Richardson take a C-1 exam in order to qualify for the
C-1 designation.
Hauck added a friendly amendment to the motion on the floor as follows: that Mr. Richardson be
required to successfully complete the C-1 exam and submit any other required documentation prior to
the time a C-1 license is issued. The amendment was seconded.
VOTE:
Yeas: Little, Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey
Nays: None
The motion carried.
5. LICENSE APPEAL — JASON BUMGARNER, D/B/A BUMGARNER CUSTOM HOMES, LLC:
Appellant, Jason Bumgarner, addressed the Board. He mentioned that he was appealing City staffs
decision to not approve his application for a Class D-1 general contractor's license. He noted that
City staff did approve him for a Class D-2 license. Bumgarner stated that he understood that the
requirements for each license class were put in place to protect the integrity of the Community and to
promote a uniform set of guidelines in issuing contractor licenses. However, he mentioned that from
time to time there are certain individuals who have additional educational experience in the
construction industry who may not meet all of the City's specific requirements, but who are qualified
for a license. Bumgarner thought that he fit in this category.
Bumgamer stated that it was his understanding that staff's denial of his Class D-1 license request was
based on his lack of a third project verification form in which he was a project supervisor for the
entire project. The two project forms that the City accepted were for two custom homes that were
built for his family. The homes were not starter or spec homes, but were large custom homes with
appraised values of well over $500,000. The complexity and detail of the homes, Bumgarner
believed, were certainly more than would be required for the construction of three entry level homes.
The homes consisted of unique foundation systems, including caissons, multiple heating plans,
extensive electrical and plumbing designs, as well as very intricate floor, wall and roof framing
systems.
BRB
Oct. 28, 1999
Page 10
Bumgarer mentioned that his educational experience included coursework at Colorado State
University in the Construction Management program. He completed every required construction
management course, including drafting, blueprint reading, estimating, scheduling, construction
contracts, and others. In addition to the construction courses, he also completed courses pertaining to
business management, accounting, real estate and business law.
Bumgamer has worked in the construction industry for all of his adult life for companies including
Project Construction Corp. in Alaska, Hensel Phelps Construction in both Greeley and California, and
BMC West lumber here in Ft. Collins. He has also been a member of the Northern Colorado
Homebuilders Association.
Bumgamer stated that while employed at BMC West, he assisted contractors, homeowners, architects
and engineers in the construction of hundreds of residential and commercial projects in Northern
Colorado and in the City of Fort Colllins. The projects ranged from simple additions, to major
commercial projects, with construction values in the millions of dollars. Although he was not the
actual project supervisor, he played a very active role in the completion of these projects. He was
responsible for doing material take -offs including engineered and dimensional lumber floor systems;
wall systems, including balloon framing, header construction, bearing load considerations and
window and door egress requirements; stick frame and engineered roof systems; as well as items such
as windows, doors, siding, roofing, drywall, cabinets and hardware. His position at BMC required
extensive knowledge of all of these building products in not only a technical sense, but also
knowledge of the workability and appropriateness of each product as it related to each particular
project design.
Bumgamer closed by stating that he took the required Ft. Collins' exam and received a very high
mark and that although he may not meet the exact requirements of the City pertaining to his third
project, he has extensive knowledge in the industry and has been an integral part of many projects in
Northern Colorado. It was his opinion that granting him a D-1 license would not be a detriment to
public good and would not impair the intent or purposes of the City's code.
Bumgamer provided Board members with additional letters of reference that he had obtained from
general contractors and other construction professionals in the area.
Lee provided his comments relative to this appeal. He mentioned that he did not have a lot to add to
what Mr. Bumgamer had already stated. He reiterated the fact that staff did not have the authority to
approve a Class D-1 license due to the requirements that an applicant must have constructed a
minimum of three complete homes to support this scope of license.
Massey asked for clarification on the documentation that had been submitted. Lee confirmed that
Bumgarer passed the required exam, had submitted two projects that met the Class D-1
requirements, and had one project that met the Class D-2 requirements. Massey stated that it was his
opinion that the additional education that was obtained by Bumgamer, coupled with the project that
did not quite meet the D-I requirements, should be considered as an equivalent project to support the
Class D-1 license that was being requested.
Kreul-Froseth mentioned that the additional coursework Bumgamer had obtained was important, and
that passing the City's exam with a score of 95.5% looked positive as well. She asked Bumgamer if
his clients were happy with the things he had built. Bumgamer confirmed this.
• • BRB
Oct. 28, 1999
Page 11
Kreul-Froseth made a motion to approve Bumgarner's request that he be granted a Class D-1
contractors license based on his demonstrated level of experience, the test score he received on the
City's exam, and the additional coursework he obtained through CSU. Little seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Yeas: Little, Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey
Nays: None
The motion carried.
6. LICENSE HEARING — WILLARD WRIGHT, D/B/A WILLARD WRIGHT PLUMBING
Fielder explained the procedures that would be used for the license hearings.
Lee presented the City's position relative to this appeal. He mentioned that on or about October 11,
1999, an City building inspector was notified that Willard Wright Plumbing had been replacing
several water heaters at a building complex located at 1672 Riverside Drive. When staff checked
permit records, it was determined that no permits had been obtained by this contractor. Lee
mentioned that the information shown in Board packets reflected that two permits had been obtained.
However, upon further checking by staff, it was determined that those permits had been obtained by a
contractor other than Willard Wright.
The building inspector followed up with the property management company to determine the scope of
the work. The property management company confirmed that water heaters were replaced at 1672
Riverside Drive, and faxed to the City a copy of the Work Proposal.
Lee stated that City code requires that an individual permit be obtained for each water heater being
replaced, and that the permits be obtained prior to the work being started.
It was staffs opinion that Willard Wright, d/b/a Willard Wright Plumbing, may have committed the
following violations of Section 15-158(c) and Section 5-106 {reference to: Sec. 301(a) of the 1991
Uniform Mechanical Code, Permits Required) of the "Code of The City of Fort Collins", more
specifically as follows:
"(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;
(6) Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be performed;
(7) Commitment of any act of negligence, incompetence or misconduct in the performance of
the contractor's specific trade which results in posing a substantial threat to public health
and safety ..."
Respondent, Willard Wright, addressed the Board. He mentioned that he has lived in Fort Collins all
of his life and has been in the plumbing business for 47 years. He stated that he understands that
permits are required to do work and that he does obtain permits.
BRB
Oct. 28, 1999
Page 12
Wright mentioned that this project is about two blocks from his shop. There are four 12-unit
buildings on the site, 48 units. The project manager wanted Wright to replace 45 water heaters.
Wright asked the manager to identify the three units which would not be receiving the new water
heaters which he said he would do.
Wright called the City and asked them what would be required for the water heaters since this is the
first time they had come across a project where 45 units were being replaced at one time. Wright
stated that he was told that he would have to make out 45 checks and 45 permit applications in order
to obtain the permits. Wright objected to this and asked if this could be done on one blanket permit.
He stated that City staff told him that this could not be done. Wright asked if an application could be
filled out for each water heater, and one check submitted that covered all of the applications. He
mentioned that staff did agree to that and gave him the total fees that would be required for the job.
This amount was added into the estimate that was presented to the project manager.
Wright was uncertain about the three units that did not need new water heaters at the time the job was
started. So, Wright waited until the job was done to obtain the permits. Wright stated that no one
asked them to obtain the permits and that he did not willfully disregard anything. He knew that
permits had to be obtained, fees were included in the job estimate which was shown on the work
proposal, and when the job was completed, permits were obtained.
Wright mentioned that for the first time in several years he took a vacation. He left several signed
checks with one of his daughters and gave her a list of things to complete as soon as possible. On
October 4, 1999, check #10523 was written for $675. His daughter did not submit the permit
applications to the building department until October 19`h. Wright mentioned that no one from the
City told him that he had to get over to the building department to obtain the permits. No one
threatened him, told him he would be fined, etc. When his daughter arrived at the building
department, she was told that she owed another $675 since the permits were not obtained in time.
Wright mentioned that the permits could not be obtained until they had the proper addresses. They
did not know which units did not need water heaters replaced until they actually started working.
Wright reiterated that he does obtain permits for water heaters. He also stated that for the last 10
years he has been sending permit applications in for water heaters once or twice a month and that that
has been an acceptable practice. To say that a permit has to be obtained prior to replacing a water
heater is not always realistic. Wright shared an example where a customer called him because her
water heater was leaking. He picked up a water heater from his warehouse and proceeded to her
house to do the job. He noticed water on the floor near the water heater, but could find no leaks on
the water heater, the fittings or the controls. The woman's dog had simply urinated on the floor.
Wright did not get paid for the trip and took the water heater back and put it in storage. Wright was
unsure about how he would get his money back from the City had he obtained a permit prior to going
to this customer's house.
Wright stated that he seems to get a fair share of water heaters that need to be replaced on weekends
or in the middle of the night and stated that a person cannot obtain a permit from the City when they
are not open. Wright thought there should be some lee way with respect to water heaters.
Wright stated that he did this project right. He called the City and was informed of how much the
permits would be. This amount was included in the fees charged to the customer. He proceeded with
the job and paid for and obtained permits once he was sure that the job had been completed
satisfactorily.
• • BRB
Oct. 28, 1999
Page 13
Wright was required to pay the City double the amount that was included in his work proposal. He
could not obtain the permits until he knew the actual addresses. He stated that the job was done
properly, as near as he could do it right.
Lee mentioned that the City does provide for emergencies and after -hour replacements, as long as the
permits are obtained on the next business day. In any other case, permits are required to be obtained
prior to the job being started.
Willard asked what the City would do if a customer ordered a 50 gallon water heater, he obtained the
required permit for the replacement, and it turned out that only a valve needed to be replaced, or a
minor adjustment was needed. Wright did not want to be forced to change out the water heater
because he had obtained the permit. He mentioned that there has to be a more lenient way of
handling these cases. Lee answered that the City would issue a refund in the situation that was
described. Wright stated that this would be a lot of trouble for him to go through. It adds to the price
of the job considerably when it takes his employee an additional hour or so to initially obtain a
permit, and then have to return for a refund based on the fact that a replacement was not required.
Lee stated that although the process may be inconvenient, there is no other way for the City to track
the work that is being done. A person may forget to get a permit, may have never intended on getting
a permit and it may be found months later that the work was actually done.
Kreul-Froseth asked if there had been past problems with Willard Wright Plumbing. Lee confirmed
that there had been none. She stated that since it sounded like Wright's company had been notified
and paid a penalty, that this was penalty enough. She was open to dismissing the allegations based on
the fact that this contractor had already been penalized.
Hauck asked for clarification on whether Wright had already paid the double fees that were assessed.
Wright confirmed this. Hauck asked if the penalty was a doubling of the permit fee. Lee confirmed
this. Hauck asked for clarification on the date the water heater installations were completed. Wright
mentioned that the job was completed in four days. Hauck asked about the timing between the time
the job was completed and the time the permits were actually obtained. Wright mentioned that the
permits were obtained several days after the job was completed.
Little mentioned that he has used Wright Plumbing on approximately 17 occasions since 1994 and he
has always done a tremendous job for him. He was in agreement that the allegations should be
dismissed.
Little made a motion that all allegations against Willard Wright, d/b/a Willard Wright Plumbing be
dismissed in this case. Kreul-Froseth seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Yeas:
Little, Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey
Nays:
None
The motion carried.
Lee mentioned that in the future, on projects where there are clusters of permits for a single address,
staff will attempt to make the process much simpler.
Wright mentioned that he would be asking for a refund on the double fees that had been assessed. He
also asked about a separate project. He mentioned that he is working on a boiler replacement at the
Linden Hotel. He stated that he spoke with one of the City building inspectors and told them that he
BRB
Oct. 28, 1999
Page 14
did not know what the valuation of the project would be. The customer is having Wright Plumbing
do this project by the hour. Wright obtained an estimate on permit fees based on a valuation of
between $24,000-$26,000. He informed the customer that he would agree to do the job by the hour,
and that the required permit would be obtained once the job had been completed and the new boiler
was working correctly, and once he had received payment from the customer. .
Wright mentioned that a larger boiler was ordered than what was existing. The larger boiler made it
necessary to make changes to the combustion air unit to increase the capacity. Wright is still trying to
decide whether this customer needs a float and thermostatic trap, which would increase the cost of the
project by about $2,600 or $2,700. Wright stated that he has not obtained a permit on this job since
he does not know what the final cost of the project will be. However, the fee for the permit was
included in the initial estimate given to the customer, and she is aware that a permit will be obtained.
Wright stated that if he had to obtain a permit on a project like this prior to knowing what the actual
cost of the job would be, he would have to come up with the best estimate possible as the valuation
that would be placed on the permit. He questioned what would happen if the job cost exceeded the
valuation that was included on the permit. He thought there should be some type of lenience allowed
in these types of situations for contractors who are trying to do things right. He asked Lee for
guidance in this situation.
Lee answered that this is something they could discuss after the hearing
7. LICENSE HEARING — DANIEL GRAHAM, D/B/A OLD TIME SHEET METAL
This item was postponed to next month's meeting,
8. LICENSE HEARING — JUSTIN FRANZ, D/B/A AA PLUMBING
Lee presented information relative to this appeal. He mentioned that on or about May 4, 1999, a letter
was sent to Mr. Franz after a city inspector found unlicensed plumbers working for AA Plumbing on
a job site at 1509 Haymarket Street. The letter stated that any further violations could result in a
hearing before this Board.
On August 13, 1999, a Stop Work Order was issued for unlicensed plumbers working for AA
Plumbing on a job site at 3208 Hearthfire. Another Stop Work Order was issued on September 29,
1999, for work done by employees of AA Plumbing at 1300 Yount Street without a permit.
It is staffs position that AA Plumbing may have committed one or more of the following acts in
violation to Section 15-158(f), Section 5-106 (reference to: Sec. 301(a) of the 1991 Uniform
Mechanical Code, Permits Required} and Section 15-306 of the "Code of The City of Fort Collins",
more specifically as follows:
"(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;
(6) Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be performed;
• • BRB
Oct. 28, 1999
Page 15
(8) Performance of work for which a license is required without a valid, current license; and
(9) Failure to provide supervision and maintain licenses as required by the state Examining
Board of Plumbers for all apprentice and journeyman plumbers."
Steve Howard, attorney for Appellant, Justin Franz, addressed the Board. He mentioned that Franz
had asked to have this hearing postponed, which did not happen, but that they were prepared to
proceed with today's hearing. Howard mentioned that they did not receive any hearing procedures
along with the other information that was sent to Franz, and asked the Board to advise him if he was
doing anything wrong.
Howard outlined Franz's position on the alleged violations. On the initial allegation that AA
Plumbing was doing work with unlicensed plumbers, Franz admits that he was guilty of that at that
time. Howard mentioned that there was only one employee of AA Plumbing on the job site, and that
that employee had passed his practical test and was scheduled for a written test. The employee was
subject to the supervision of Franz, but Franz was not present at the time the inspector stopped. This
employee obtained his license shortly after this incident. Howard stated that the letter sent by the
City to Franz on May 4, 1999, was never received by Franz. Therefore, Franz was not aware that
future violations would subject him to disciplinary action.
The second Stop Work Order concerned work again being done on a job site by unlicensed plumbers,
or, more accurately in this case, by an apprentice plumber, without supervision. Franz flatly denies
the allegation that this employee was doing any work. Howard explained that according to Franz, he
was present on the job site, and was supervising the employee's work, but needed to leave the job site
for a short period of time. Franz will testify that he instructed his employee not to do any plumbing
work while he was gone. Ben Knoll, the apprentice employee who was on the job site, will state that
he did not perform plumbing work while Franz was not there. Howard mentioned that from his brief
involvement with the plumbing code, he was not sure that a supervisor was required to be present
every instant. Howard reiterated that it is their position that there was no violation in this instance.
Howard mentioned that there seems to be some type of problem with communication between City
staff and Franz. He stated that Franz tried to speak with two separate individuals with the City, and
neither one would discuss the situation with him.
Howard stated that Franz will testify that it has been customary in the City not to require advance
permits prior to the replacement of every water heater. Howard believed that records would reflect,
and that Franz would say, that double fees have never been charged for these things until recently,
because that was not the custom. Howard mentioned that there is some written evidence of that based
on the letter that was sent out on October 5, 1999, a week after the third incident involving Franz,
advising contractors that, except in emergency situations, furnaces and water heaters had to have
permits before they were replaced. According to Howard, Franz believes that this appears to be an
issue of selective enforcement if the custom is or has been to not enforce this provision. Howard
went on to say that Franz will state that he has talked with a number of plumbers who were not aware
that this was required by the City until October, 1999. Howard maintained that it is Franz's position
that on this third violation, although it was technically a violation of City code, it is not one that is
appropriate for enforcement.
BRB
Oct. 28, 1999
Page 16
Franz addressed the Board. He mentioned that on the May 4, 1999 incident, the reason his employee,
Joe, did not have a license was because he had worked for Hahn Plumbing and he could not get his
hours verified. The City of Fort Collins never enforced going around and checking for licenses. So,
because of this, Joe got away with working on jobs without having a plumbing license for years both
through his employment with Hahn Plumbing and his employment with AA Plumbing. When the
City started checking licenses, Franz started he began working immediately to get Joe licensed. He
allowed Joe to continue working without a license because he was scheduled to do jobs and needed to
get them completed.
Franz confirmed the fact that he never received the letter that was sent to him by the City. Franz said
he saw this letter for the first time in the packet of information that he received for today's hearing.
In response to that letter, Franz read a response that he had prepared. His response addressed the fact
that Joe did receive his license on June 10, 1999 and since that date he had obtained a journeyman's
and master's license.
Franz mentioned that the second incident that occurred on August 13, 1999 was completely
inaccurate. He stated that he was personally on the job site with Ben Knoll, his apprentice employee.
Franz had to leave the job site to make a bank deposit for payroll. Ben was instructed to clean up the
job site while Franz was away. While Franz was away, he received a call from Ben that a City
building inspector arrived at the job site and asked for his license. Ben presented his apprenticeship
card and stated that Franz would be returning shortly. The inspector subsequently completed a Stop
Work Order. When Franz arrived back at the job site, he read the Stop Work Order and called the
inspector. According to Franz, the inspector informed him that he could not discuss the issue with
him and referred him to his supervisor. Franz called for the supervisor and was informed that he was
not in the office. Franz stated that he left a message for the supervisor and never received a return
call. Franz and his apprentice employee continued the job through completion.
It was Franz's opinion that the second Stop Work Order was written in error and felt that he had made
an effort to correct the matter, with no response from staff.
On the Stop Work Order that was issued on September 29, 1999, Franz stated that his service plumber
was replacing a broken water heater. The City inspector arrived at this customer's house and viewed
the service plumber working on the water heater. The City inspector informed the plumber that a
permit was required prior to installing new water heaters. Franz was unaware of this requirement. In
the past, he said, the City has allowed permits to be obtained after the work was completed.
Franz acknowledged that the requirement of obtaining permits prior to installation is what is set out in
the code book, and always has been. However, he stated that all administrative authorities have
adoptions and amendments to the code. Franz said he was notified of the procedure change, but not
until almost two weeks after the third Stop Work Order was issued. Franz stated that the City of Fort
Colllins should have sent out the letters clarifying the procedural change prior to the time they started
enforcing this issue.
Franz mentioned that he has held a plumbing license since February, 1983 and that it is important to
him to uphold the integrity of the plumbing trade. He stated that all of his employees are now
licensed. He has one master's license, three journeyman and two apprentice employees. He
mentioned that he has quit working for some contractors who he has done work for in the past, and
has laid off three employees since they did not have the licenses that were being required by the
building department. Franz stated that he currently has two trucks sitting because he cannot find
qualified people to hire. It was his feeling that it is more important to comply with the rules, than to
• BRB
Oct. 28, 1999
Page 17
do the work with unlicensed employees. Franz added that this was not the case for other contractors,
since the three employees he laid off now work in lead positions for other plumbing contractors.
Franz thought there should have been more communication between Ft. Collins master plumbers and
the Building & Zoning department. According to Franz, he has had numerous meetings with City
staff on code issues, but has never received any letters regarding code concerns. Recently, Franz
stated that he was at a local plumbing warehouse where he saw several notices of code clarifications.
He asked how they received copies of these code clarifications and was told that the building
department faxed these to them. Franz asked another plumbing vendor why they did not post notices
of code clarifications and was told that they did not do this because they never received any code
clarifications from the building department. It appeared to Franz that the City's methods for
communicating to the building industry were incomplete and inconsistent.
Franz believed that there may have been some discrimination against his company in these instances,
but hoped this was not the case. He closed by saying that he hoped that after this hearing, there
would be increased communication efforts between the building department and contractors. He
stated that he would continue to press on and do what is right in accordance with the Uniform
Plumbing Code.
Lee asked Franz if the address shown on the letter that was sent to him by the City reflected a correct
address for him. Franz confirmed that this was his proper mailing address. He added that his post
office changed mail boxes, and that could have been the reason he never received the letter.
Lee asked for clarification on whether Franz had been advised that no permits were needed prior to
starting a job. Franz stated that at the time he started his business in Ft. Collins, he went to the
building department and asked about the procedures for obtaining permits. He was given application
forms and was told to fill them out and send them in as needed once or twice a month, or weekly, if
possible. Franz left with the understanding that this was the City's acceptable business practice and
was told that Allen Plumbing & Heating obtained their permits by following this procedure.
Lee asked Franz if he knew that the code stated something else. Franz acknowledged that he
understood that fact, but added that every town has its own amendments and adoptions to the code,
which is why he asked the building department for guidance on obtaining permits in Ft. Collins. Lee
asked for clarification on how the City would have been aware that a Penn it was going to be obtained
for the water heater replacement that was done at 1300 Yount. Franz answered that he did not know.
Lee asked Franz for clarification on apprentice employees working without licenses. Franz stated that
he did have an apprentice employee working at 1509 Haymarket without Franz on the job site at the
time a building inspector arrived. Franz mentioned that he had spent a lot of time on that job site and
arrived back at the job site later that day.
Hauck asked Franz if he had changed his policies and procedures to assure that continued violations
would not occur. Franz answered that he had done this and listed the following examples: 1) He had
given all of his service employees an envelope with cash that allows them to purchase permits prior to
starting a job; 2) He met with City staff on numerous occasions to get clarification on code issues;
and 3) He has assured that all of his employees have the required licenses. Franz stated that he has
done everything possible to make sure that he is in full compliance with the City.
BRB
Oct. 28, 1999
Page 18
Howard asked Franz if he had asked other plumbing contractors about their procedures for obtaining
permits. Franz confirmed that he had. He mentioned that some of the contractors he spoke with had
received the City's letter clarifying the requirements that permits had to be obtained prior to starting
work. He mentioned that one of the contractors stated he would not do furnace and water heater
replacements anymore. Another of those contractors had been down to the City to voice his concerns.
However, a separate contractor he spoke with mentioned that he did not know that anything had
changed and stated that he had not received the letter. This contractor knew what the requirements
were in the code book, but did not know that the City had made changes.
Hauck mentioned that the Board's first step was to make a finding of fact in this case and to follow
that with a determination on what the results should be. He stated that he had not heard anything that
separated the fact that there was work being done without a permit and that there were unlicensed
plumbers performing work on projects. Hauck made a motion on a finding of fact, as follows:
That Justin Franz, d/b/a AA Plumbing did commit the following violations to Section 15-158(f),
Section 5-106 (reference to: Sec. 301(a) of the 1991 Uniform Mechanical Code, Permits Required)
and Section 15-306 of the "Code of The City of Fort Collins":
(6) Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be performed;
(8) Performance of work for which a license is required without a valid, current license; and
(9) Failure to provide supervision and maintain licenses as required by the state Examining
Board of Plumbers for all apprentice and journeyman plumbers.
Kreul-Froseth seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Yeas: Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey
Nays: Little
The motion carried.
Hauck mentioned that in terms of a determination of action in this case, although the violations that
were set out in the finding of fact did exist, there was no indication that the violations were willful or
deliberate. Hauck made a motion that a letter of reprimand be placed in Franz' contractor file,
making note of the violations, with a notification that any additional violations would result in a
second hearing before the Board for possible suspension or revocation of the contractor license.
Kreul-Froseth seconded the motion.
Massey mentioned that he appreciated the changes that were made by Franz despite the challenges of
staffing shortages, etc. He mentioned that it is important that the City communicate to contractors
how permits are to be obtained, when they need to be obtained, etc. Massey stated that he did not feel
that a suspension or probationary period was appropriate in this case. He was in favor of the letter of
reprimand since Franz admitted that a mistake was made on Haymarket job site.
VOTE:
Yeas: Little, Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey
Nays: None
The motion carried.
• BRB
Oct. 28, 1999
Page 19
9. LICENSE HEARING — DENNIS JONES, D/B/A MAJESTIC ROOFING
Lee provided information relative to this appeal. He mentioned that on or about September 29, 1999,
staff received a letter from Steve Buff regarding a roofing job done at his home located at 3260
Pepperwood Lane. He noted in his letter that at no time while the job was being done was a permit
displayed. He contacted the building department on September 7, 1999 to ask about the permit and
was told that one had not been obtained. He then called Majestic Roofing to ask about the permit and
was told that it was not handy but would be posted on the job site that afternoon. Majestic Roofing
obtained a permit later that afternoon, after the work had been completed.
This same contractor appeared before the Board in June, 1999, for the same issue. At that time, the
Board imposed a 30 day suspension to his license.
It was staff s position that the following violations had occurred to Section 15-158(f) of the Fort
Collins Contractor License Regulations:
111. 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;
6. Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be performed;"
Kreul-Froseth asked if anyone was present to represent Mr. Jones. Lee confirmed that there was no
one in attendance.
Hauck asked if this work was done during the time his license was suspended. Lee stated that the
work was done outside of the suspension period.
Little mentioned that there was apparent disregard for the request for appearance and thought a
suspension might be appropriate. He made a motion to suspend this license until such time as the
contractor appeared before the Board.
Kreul-Froseth asked for clarification on whether or not the contractor was required to actually attend
the Board hearing. Lee mentioned that the contractor was not required to attend and that the Board
was authorized to take action on a license without the contractor being present.
Hauck made a motion that a finding of fact be made in this case as follows:
That Dennis Jones, d/b/a Majestic Roofing committed the following violations of Section 15-158(f)
of the Fort Collins Contractor License Regulations:
111. 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;
BRB
Oct. 28, 1999
Page 20
6. Failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be performed;"
and that this was the second time that these violations had occurred. Kreul-Froseth seconded the
motion.
VOTE:
Yeas: Little, Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey
Nays: None
Kreul-Froseth mentioned that this was the second time that these violations had, occurred in one
summer. She thought it was appropriate to double the initial suspension time that was earlier
imposed. She asked for clarification on whether Majestic Roofing had obtained permits in between
the time his license was reinstated and the new violation occurred. Lee answered that none had been
obtained.
Hauck stated that a longer suspension might be appropriate in this case, especially since it appears
that the violations were willful. If Jones was in attendance, it would be hard for him to make the
claim that he did not know he had to obtain a permit prior to commencing roofing work since he had
previously appeared before the Board. Hauck was in support of Little's suggestion that his license be
suspended until such time he appeared before the Board.
Fielder mentioned that the Board might want to consider revocation of this license
Kreul-Froseth mentioned that she would be in favor of suspending this license until such time as the
contractor appeared before the Board only because there was evidence of a third party being hurt or
potentially damaged.
Hauck asked for clarification on whether there was any evidence that the permit was to have been
obtained by the homeowner. Lee answered that he was not sure, but that until hearing from the
homeowner, City staff did not have any knowledge that Majestic Roofing was doing the work. Lee
also mentioned that based on this contractor's testimony from the June Board meeting, Jones stated
that he was aware even then that permits were necessary.
Little asked for clarification on the City's inspection process. Lee answered that no inspections are
done without a permit. If no permit has been obtained, the City will not do an inspection.
Hauck made a motion that the license of Dennis Jones, d/b/a Majestic Roofing be suspended until
such time that he appears before the Board to present any additional evidence or testimony. Little
seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Yeas: Little, Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth, Massey
Nays: None
10. OTHER BUSINESS:
Fielder mentioned that a letter was sent out to all Board Members regarding attendance. Fielder will
follow up personally with the two Board Members who were not in attendance at today's meeting to
see if they have continued interest in participating on the Board. Fielder will report back to staff.
Felix Lee, D1r' e6dr -of Building & Zoning