The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 03/27/2008Minutes to be approved by the Board at the April 24, 2008 Meeting FORT COLLINS BUILDING REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting — March 27, 2008 1:00 D.M. Lee A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, March 27, 2008 in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT: David Carr Jim Packard Alan Cram Michael Smilie George Smith Mike Gust Jeff Schneider BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Delynn Coldiron, Customer & Admin Services Manager Felix Lee, Neighborhood and Building Services Director AGENDA: 1. ROLLCALL The meeting was called to order and rollcall was taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Packard made a motion to approve the minutes from February 28, 2008. Schneider seconded the motion. Yeas: Packard, Cram, Smilie, Smith, Gust, Schneider Nays: Carr Robert Lawton, d/b/a Longs Peak Energy Conservation, Case # 03-08 Lee introduced the case stating that Longs Peak Energy Conservation currently has an HVAC license with the City of Fort Collins (H-1422) which was issued in March, 1998. He noted that Charlie Richardson holds both the license and supervisor certificate and that based on the testing and experience documentation provided at that time, the applicant was given an unrestricted HVAC license. Lee explained that Mr. Richardson intended on moving to part-time status with BRB March 27, 2008 Pg. 2 the company and has indicated an intent to leave altogether on occasion, which was the impetus for obtaining a new license and supervisor certificate holder for the company According to Lee, the appellant applied for a limited license that would enable him to perform the HVAC work required as part of weatherization retrofits to existing homes. Lee explained that to qualify for an HVAC license, an applicant must provide written verification of five completed projects demonstrating that the applicant possesses at least three years of supervisory experience. Additionally, for an HVAC license, two of the projects submitted must entail new system installs. Lee stated that the appellant had submitted five projects; however, did not have the prescribed level of experience necessary to obtain an unrestricted HVAC license since he had no projects that include new construction. Lee noted that, according to the appellant's information, his company exclusively provides weatherization retrofits to existing homes as a part of the State Weatherization program (Energy Saving Partners ESP) and the City of Fort Collins REACH program. As well, because his organization is grant funded, DOE guidelines prohibit him from working on new construction projects. Lee explained that the appellant passed the City's HVAC exam which covered the 2003 WC and IFGC. As well, he noted that the appellant had completed training with the Salina Area Vocational Technical School for refrigeration and air conditioning and holds a mechanical license with the City of Loveland. Appellant Lawton addressed the Board and stated that his company weatherizes low income residential homes through a nation-wide federal grant program. He explained that the grant does not allow them to perform new construction work in homes. He further explained that through the grant, Longs Peak Energy Conservation was given allowance to start performing furnace efficiency replacements. He confirmed that the current license holder is going to part-time status with their company and eventually will retire. Lawton stated that he has not ever received any complaints regarding his service and has passed all inspections. Lee asked Lawton how many furnace replacements he had performed or supervised in the last couple of years and whether or not any corrections needed to be made. Lawton explained that he had supervised and/or performed the work for approximately 150 jobs. Lawton stated that there are codes and safety standards regarding venting, fuel combustion etc, as well as codes that are set by each municipality that have to be followed. As well, Lawton explained that they are required to perform a combustion air analysis on every flue vent and, if the results are above State requirements, then improvements are made. Smilie asked whether the Building Department had the capability to ensure that the appellant would not be authorized to perform HVAC work in new construction projects, should a limited license be approved. Lee confirmed that the Building Department has the capability to enter a notice in the system alerting staff to such a requirement. Cram made a motion to approve a limited HVAC license that would enable the appellant to complete weatherization retrofits and related upgrades, as well as the replacement of existing furnaces with the caveat that there be no new construction projects allowed as part of this license. Carr seconded the motion. BRB March 27, 2008 Pg. 3 Vote: Yeas: Carr, Packard, Cram, Smilie, Smith, Gust, Schneider Nays: 4. Keira Harkin -Brown, d/b/a Old Town Designs, Inc., Case # 06-08 Lee introduced the case stating that the appellant holds a Class Dl license with the City of Fort Collins. He explained that this license allows the holder to construct, alter, repair, or demolish any buildings or structures in the City classified by the building code as a Group R, Division 3 occupancy housing not more than two (2) dwelling units, or a Group U, Division 1 occupancy, to perform alterations and/or repairs to any building or structure in the City classified by the building code as a Group R, Division I occupancy and Type V construction, provided that any such work does not alter the structural frame as defined in the building code, and to perform any work allowed under a miscellaneous and minor structure specialized trade contractor license (to construct, repair, or demolish (a) detached structures such as shelters, storage sheds, playhouses, greenhouses, and gazebos; and (b) unenclosed structures such as open carports, patio covers, open porches, and decks. He further explained that any such work is further limited to one story buildings or structures not exceeding two hundred (200) square feet in floor area and which contain occupancies limited to those classified by the building code as Group R, Division 3; Group S, Divisions I and 2; and Group U other than private garages). Lee stated that the appellant has the opportunity to perform a tenant finish project at 210 E. Oak Street and that, according to the appellant, there are no structural elements to the job. He explained that the project entails taking a building that was previously used for a dry cleaning business and converting it into 3-4 separate tenant spaces. He further explained that the planned occupant is Walter Hickman's gym, together with a possible yoga studio. The remaining tenants have not yet been identified. Lee noted that the owners of the building have requested that the appellant's company perform the project, verified by the letter included in Board packets. Lee stated that the appellant had completed numerous projects under her Dl license, including a tenant finish for Europa Spa (for which she had Board approval), which were completed without incident. Lee noted that the appellant passed the City's Class E exam on March 19, 2008, scoring a 75%. Appellant Harkin addressed the Board and stated that her company primarily works in Old Town on older structures, mostly residential, but has received requests to do commercial work because of her experience with older buildings. She explained that the owners of the proposed project requested that she come to the Board and attempt to get a project exemption to enable her to perform this work. Harkin explained that in the past she had received an exemption from the Board to perform work on Europa Spa and Salon in the Opera Galleria building. Harkin noted that nothing on the interior structure will change as part of the proposed project; they plan to remove existing drywall, electrical, plumbing and heating and update to bring the building into compliance with current standards. She further explained that they plan to re -roof the building and replace some of the skylights with no change to existing openings. Harkin stated that the first two pages of the plans show the building as it currently exists and the following show the building with incorporated changes. She explained that there are three office spaces in BRB March 27, 2008 Pg. 4 the front which will be finished as they become occupied, and then two spaces in the back, one that will be a yoga studio and one that will be a workout area. Lee asked for clarification on whether there would be adequate restroom facilities for both genders. Appellant confirmed this. Lee asked if there was an accessible entrance and if there were ramps for wheelchair use. Appellant stated that each area has its own access door, and that all of them are at least 30 inches wide. She explained that access for most areas was at street level and that ramps could be added to the ones that aren't, if needed. Lee explained that wheelchair access into the building from the street would be required. Packard asked if the previous dry cleaning business was drop off or full service. Appellant stated there was a full service dry cleaning business in the building for over 40 years, but that all of the equipment and chemicals had been cleaned out. Packard asked Lee if there was potential for environmental issues that would require structural work. His concern was specifically with irrespirable VOCs that may have been left behind that could require replacement of structural elements. Lee stated that the Building Department has not pursued remediation or investigation on dry cleaners in the past. Appellant explained that the interior walls are partition walls so if removal or replacement was needed, no structural changes to the building would be required. As well, Harkin noted that the owner had the property inspected for environmental concerns and received confirmation that the building was clear of environmental concerns. Smilie asked about the condition of the basement and whether it was accessible for the plumbing changes. Appellant confirmed that the basement was accessible. Cram asked whether the floors were wood in the location that the dry cleaning business was located. Appellant explained that the floors are mostly concrete, with one area that contained wood floors, which was where the office for the dry cleaning business was located. Gust asked whether the owner of the building was aware that the appellant did not have the appropriate level of license to do the project prior to hiring her. Libby Hickman, owner of the building, addressed the Board and stated that she had seen the previous work done by the appellant at the Europa Spa and has total confidence that she can perform the proposed work. Packard asked about the purpose for the environmental survey and whether the owner had seen the report. Hickman explained that the dry cleaner was in the process of selling, so it was suggested to him that he needed to have a clean building, at which point he had an environmental company come in and do all of the necessary tests. Hickman confirmed that she had seen the report. Gust asked Hickman to further elaborate whether she felt the appellant was qualified to perform the proposed work and to confirm that she had suggested the appellant come before the Board for a variance. Hickman reiterated that she had seen the work appellant Harkin had done on Europa Spa and had total confidence with appellant's capability to perform the current task. She confirmed that she did ask for the appellant request a variance from the Board to enable her to do the work. BRB March 27, 2008 Pg. 5 Gust asked the appellant about her test and the reason for her low passing grade. Appellant explained that she had only a limited time to study. Gust stated that the requirement for this project is an E license and asked why the appellant didn't recommend that the building owner seek a qualified contractor. Appellant explained that Gino Campana with Bellisimo Construction gave Walter and Libby Hickman the recommendation that they use her and she was interested in pursuing the project. Cram asked about building exists and his concern regarding the back unit labeled "Training" on the plans. He stated that in terms of ADA access, a building patron would have to go up a ramp and then down a ramp to get to the back part of the building. Appellant explained that there is an exit way at ground level between the yoga studio and the workout area which will not be closed off. She finther explained that there is a garage door into the alley as well as an entry door. She stated that on the west comer, the entry door into the back workout area is 42 inches wide and is ground level. As well, according to Harkin, a walkway will be added to further facilitate accessibility. Smilie asked if the appellant was confident that the plumbing changes could be performed without having to damage or cut through existing floor joists. Appellant stated that she did not believe there would be structural issues related to plumbing work. Schneider asked if the one time waiver request was for this specific project and for clarification on whether or not plans had been submitted to the City. Appellant confirmed both. Schneider asked if bathrooms were going to be installed. Appellant confirmed this. She explained that the Europa project she performed increased the size of the spa by approximately 3,000 square feet and included adding two new bathrooms, remodeling five spa -rooms, installing a full shower system and adding five sinks. Schneider asked if the existing structure and sewer system had the ability to accommodate additional bathrooms. Appellant stated that this had not been determined yet. Schneider asked if the sewer system issues had to be determined at the time of permit and whether or not the architect had done any fixture counts. Lee explained that if the fixture count was such that it increased the overall load to the building drain system for the sewer, changes would be required as part of the permit process. Hickman added that the architect is working on this issue. Schneider asked whether the two empty spaces were going to be marketed as office space. Hickman confirmed this. Schneider made a motion to grant the appellant's request for a one time exemption allowing her to perform the proposed tenant finish within the scope of work that was presented to the Board. Smilie seconded the motion. Schneider suggested a friendly amendment requiring that another contractor with the appropriate level of license be added to project if any structural issues arose, or for the appellant to come back to the Board for additional approval of the structural work. Smilie seconded the amendment. BRB March 27, 2008 Pg. 6 Vote: Yeas: Carr, Packard, Cram, Smilie, Smith, Schneider Nays: Gust David Houts, d/b/a Construction Management Solutions., Case #07-08 Lee introduced this case stating that Respondent Houts appeared before the Board in June, 2007 to request approval for his C2 license and supervisor certificate. He explained that staff had denied the request since there was some question about whether Respondent Houts had adequate on -site supervision experience and due to the fact that he did not have a third project to submit that qualified for the C2 license. He further explained that the Board approved Respondent Houts' request for a C2 license which was issued on July 3, 2007. Lee noted that Respondent Houts also holds a Class Dl license with the City of Fort Collins which was issued in March, 2007. Lee explained that Respondent Houts appeared before the Board again on August 30, 2007 for Stop Work Orders that were issued on August 10, 2007 at 2002 Raven View Drive, 2008 Raven View Drive, 2014 Raven View Drive, 2020 Raven View Drive, 2026 Raven View Drive and 2032 Raven View Drive due to construction that had been performed prior to obtaining building permits. He further explained that at that meeting, the Board imposed a six-month suspension to the Respondent's C2 license, but allowed him to continue working on the Raven View projects only. He noted the suspension took effect on August 30, 2007. Lee stated that a subcontractor of Respondent Houts was found performing demolition work at 5221 Strauss Cabin Road on February 26, 2008, without a valid demo permit and without the required asbestos inspection required by the State of Colorado. He referred the Board to pictures of the demolition work in progress that were included in Board packets. Lee explained that Lead Inspector, Sam Hancock, spoke with Respondent Houts on the phone on February 26, 2008, instructing him to stop the demolition work that had been started. As well, Building Inspector, Ron Zarembinski, instructed the equipment operator on -site to cease demolition work at that same time. Lee noted that the house was later posted by Housing Inspector, Derf Green, as a dangerous building and instructions were given to the Respondent on expectations for securing the property. Additionally, Lee explained that Stop Work Orders were issued to the Respondent on January 18, 2008 for 2002 Raven View Road and 2008 Raven View Road for proceeding with work prior to getting the needed inspections, despite instructions from the Building Inspector not to do so as shown on the inspection comment that was provided in Board packets. According to Lee, the Respondent was required to remove drywall and insulation for inspection purposes. He noted that rough framing and insulations inspections failed on February 26, 2008, but were rescheduled for February 29, 2008. Lee stated that he suspended both of Respondent's licenses on February 29, 2008 pending the Board's decision at this meeting. He added that Mr. Houts is believed to be in violation of several sections of the City code, including: 1) knowing or deliberate disregard of the building code or any other code adopted by the City related to a specific project under the responsibility of the certificate holder or the license holder; 2) failure to comply with any provision of the code BRB March 27, 2008 Pg. 7 related to a specific construction project under the responsibility of the certificate holder or the license holder; 6) failure to obtain the required permit for the work prior to its commencement; and 7) commitment of an act or negligence, incompetence or misconduct in the performance of the contractor's specific trade which results in posing a threat to public health and safety. Lee noted that the last item was due to asbestos being released into the air, if there was any. Respondent Houts addressed the Board. The following is a verbatim account of the discussion that occurred in this case: Houts: I am David Houts. I am, along with my wife, managing partner for Construction Management Solutions and I regretfully say it's nice to see you again. I am not sure why I am here. My license is suspended and this is to see if it can be unsuspended. Gentleman, I don't know what to say, except that I feel that the information that was presented here, although accurate within the context that it was intended to be represented, is inaccurate with what actually happened. There seems to be a position by the Building Official that my actions or a series of actions bring into question my competence and potentially my regard for authority. Although I see why he may have made that decision, I feel that some of the information here is misleading and not leading accurately. I am not gonna go through and rehash this. I am gonna say a couple things. That the stop work order happened at Raven View is, for lack of a better word, absurd. We have six individual building permits for one building. It's done that way because they are a fee simple lots with a property line and a zero lot line. The challenge from a building standpoint on those simple buildings is the firewall, two hour fire raring and all of the appropriate separation. I was working at great length with Sam Hancock to journey from one end of the building through the other end of the building, to do it sequentially, to allow for efficiencies in the field, and still allow for him to inspect. It states right here that stop work orders were issued on January 18'h because I proceeded with work prior to getting needed inspections. I am not sure why that happened. The previous four buildings were insulated and dry walled in sequence as verbally approved by Sam Hancock. I would call in subsequent inspections, we would look through the common property walls and he would wall by wall approve the installation of drywall and said insulation because that built the common wall. When on the day that I called in for insulation, framing, and what we call pre -drywall installation, I waited all afternoon for Sam to show up. It was bad weather, I think it was a Wednesday or the Tuesday before Thanksgiving weekend, and I said, "Sam I gotta go get some stuff in order, the permit cards are on the drywall on the drywall pile." He said, "Great, no problem, Dave." He went and inspected it. I grabbed the permit cards, put them in a file and continued to proceed with what we had established as protocol through previous inspections. Towards the middle of December, end of December, I was trying to get beat going in the house, as I couldn't proceed with any drywall finishing because of the temperature conditions of the property and discovered that although Sam did inspect the properties, wrote specifically do not insulate and it surprised me. So I said, "Sam, sorry I put some insulation in based on last time we did it, I will pull it off and we'll get you out there when it's opened up." So I am not sure what happened but from that dialogue to January 18s', someone felt it was appropriate to put a stop work order on it for work that was intentionally proceeded on. I thought to myself, I said, wait a minute, that's not really what happened. When I saw that it potentially covered some stuff, it may not have been inspected, I made the decision to get heat in the building, because we were fighting wind and heat the entire winter, get it secured, get heat in the building, so we can actually manage it effectively, not be challenged with subzero temperatures. So I stopped all work when the work orders were posted, there was no one doing work at that time, with the intent to come back open up some stuff. Sam came on out and saw what we had. There was never an issue. I am shocked, BRB March 27, 2008 Pg. 8 for lack of a better word, to be here today to defend my competence and my regard for authority based on that particular issue, because it was not in any way shape or form intentional. For the record, there was two pieces of drywall less than four feet long and four pieces of drywall less than two feet long, removed to see the areas of concern. There were four pieces of insulation no bigger than this piece of paper in area, removed to see four points of caulking for fire caulking that were viewed and inspected. So the comment says for proceeding with work prior to getting needed inspections. That's what it says, despite, instruction from the Building Inspector. Two pieces of drywall four by four and four pieces of drywall two by four and four pieces of insulation no bigger than this piece of paper. I have difficult time determining that as deliberate, intentional, progress, despite instruction from the Building Inspector with the conditions we've had in previous inspections through the previous four buildings. So I take issue with that representation as it challenges my competence and as it challenges my regard to authority. It just isn't valid. Regarding the demolition, this document states, properties in violation, Strauss Cabin Road, contractor, David Houts. The description of the violation says contractor of record was working without a valid demo permit or an asbestos inspection as required by the State of Colorado. That in true intent of the law is true, but it was unintentional and it was a total mistake, firstly. Secondly, I am technically not the contractor of record on that particular project on Strauss Cabin Road. I am a construction manager providing some guidance for the owner, to fulfill his own contracts with his own subcontractors, i.e. grading, paving, concrete and so forth. When we, due to ongoing budgetary challenges with the second phase of Sunrise, which is what it is talking about, it's where Strauss Cabin Road is, we knew there was a lot of dialogue on whether or not the house can even be salvaged. So, through the course of management, through the course of consulting, through the course of research and cost, it was determined that the house should be demoed and I said, "Kelly, for the interest of budget, we probably can get our excavation contractors, Schmidt Earth Builders, a very well regarded subcontractor in Northern Colorado, to demo the building. Let me call him." This was in October of '07. "Yeah, Dave, we do demo all the time, give me a budget." I said, "Great, I am not sure when we are gonna do it, but when you mobilize in to do lot grading and de -stumping and de -grubbing, we'll have you spend a couple days on the house, so you can haul it off and we can continue." He said, "Great, no problem." So winter hit, it's snowing, ground is frozen, diesel machines don't work. We did not try to finish the demolition. However, during the course of late summer and early fall, we did allow residents of the community to salvage pieces of the home. We pulled the windows out. He pulled appliances out, cabinets, countertops, things that were salvageable. We felt that was a way to repay some cost and preserve some of the things that have value. So the building went into winter as a relatively open building not knowing that anybody was in violation. We had a development inspection, a preconstruction DCP permit meeting sometime in December, November. At no time during that meeting was the demolition addressed or in any capacity questioned about what we were doing with that building. We had phase I which was just to the north side of Rock Creek Drive. We had a dozen inspections through the course of the summer and fall. Never once did anybody express any concern about the condition of that building. On, I don't know when it was, December, my owner calls me and said, "Did you hear about our party?" I said, "No, I didn't hear about a party." He said some kids were trespassing, in the house, the subject property, and partying in the basement. Whoa, what happened? The police called out. They apprehended four or £rve of them and the owner decided not to press charges of trespassing and property damage. That process damaged the home more. Broke drywall, broke walls. They were in the basement destroying the property. Because the building was pending demolition, the owner chose not to proceed with charges. A week later, he is leaving for vacation BRB March 27, 2008 Pg. 9 on Friday, on Monday he comes back to a disturbing letter from the City saying that now he is in ownership of a building that is compromising public safety. So, at first he thought wait a minute. A week ago, I chose to show grace and humility and not press charges to juvenile delinquents who were damaging my property, and now he's the enemy and there wasn't even a phone call. I am, all of us are, on the DCP permit. All of us are providing consultation. Not one phone call. Someone sits in the office, types a letter, it was Derf. He says you have seven days to remove this building or board it up. Well, due to the demolition that had happened in the basement from the vandalism, the boarding up was going to cost 16 times the cost of demolition. I called Derf, I said, "Derf, we are on this, we have DCP, let me get my mind around, let me get our arms around, what the demolition condition is going to be, what the demolition permit requirements are going to be, but I will mobilize my excavation crew, who is originally assigned to demolish the building, we were planning on doing that anyway." So that's what happened. So he posted it that time as an unsafe building. Not before I did demolition, but before, not after, before, he posted a sign saying unsafe building do not enter. So on Monday, which was, must have been the 23`d, 24`h of February, my customer called me with this disturbing letter from the City. "Hey, Dave, we have now three days to take care of this building. Because now my trespassers compromised the condition of this building, now it's my responsibility in three days to tear it down." I said, "Kelly, let me get on it." So, although I am not the contractor of record, I am his construction consultant and we intended to try and solve this problem. We really intended to solve this public nuisance. I had been in contact coincidentally with Schmidt Earth Builders to prepare for mobilization. When I got that call from Kelly on Monday the 23`d, 24'h, whatever day that was, I said, "Gene, who is my contact at Schmidt Earth Builders? We are getting some pressure to take that building down. Let's go ahead and mobilize in. How available are you?" Prior to that letter we got from the City, we hadn't even started the preconstruction process to mobilize in and go through all the documentation. But in our effort to try to solve the nuisance of this building, we ramped everything up. And the quote was this "Gene, this is Dave. How ya doing? Good Dave. How are you? Can you please, are you available to mobilize and start our excavation and demolition?" "I'll check." He gets back to me, "Hey, we can probably get a guy in there with a backhoe to start de -stumping and demolition." I said, "Great. I have the DCP, let me find out if the demolition falls within the DCP or if I need to get a separate permit, I'll get back to you." In the journey through the day, I discovered that I needed a demolition permit specifically for the project that was within a DCP. I then found out that there was whole protocol that I had not started yet and I said, "Gene, I am not sure what's gonna happen here, I don't know how long it's gonna take to get this permit, but go ahead and mobilize in, and we gotta take care of this building. Let's move the stumps and stay nimble until you get the green light, the permit is ready to go." He said, "Great." He calls me that night, Monday night, " Dave, I am going to be there Tuesday morning, between 8 and 10, mobilize in; I'll call you in the morning." I said, "Great." I call him in the morning, "Gene, this permit is still outstanding. I think, let's not touch the building, let's work in the stump areas and the around." I don't know what happened between that phone call at 8 and 9 o'clock, but the operator dropped his piece of equipment and in three minutes did the damage that you see in the picture. So, when I discovered the permit was not going to be available, I said, "Gene, just to make sure do not start on the building, because I don't think I am going to get my demolition permit quickly." He said, "Dave, it's too late, he's already on it." I said, "Well, stop." He said, "ok, I am going to call him right back." I hung up the phone. 30 seconds later, Sam Hancock calls me and said, "Dave, my guy's out there; he said you are demoing the building." I said, "What? I told him to stop." So, he stops. So, Sam calls me back and says, "you better make sure you get out there." I was at Raven View, coincidentally, trying to solve a couple things, that Sam specifically asked me solve. I got in my truck, I drove. I was surprised to see that amount of damage he had done in three minutes. I called Sam, "Sam, I BRB March 27, 2008 Pg. 10 apologize for the misunderstanding, we have pulled him off, he is working on stumps. Let me figure out what's going on." "Great, no problem, Dave." That was the end of the conversation. I met with Century Environmental Hygienist a licensed environmental hygienist company in Fort Collins. He met with me Tuesday. Through a couple day period he said, "I don't think you have asbestos here, but we have protocol." He went to the protocol and he found some of the acoustics in the finished ceiling in the basement and the main level had asbestos. I called Derf. I said, "Derf, we might be able to get this done quickly, can I get an extension? Can I get an extension on the requirement that I have seven days to cure the building?" He said, "No." I said, "Well, what do you want me to do?" So we talked. After a couple moments he said, "How about if you get a fence." "I'll get a fence by Thursday morning." He said, "No problem." I called the fencing contractor. He was up Thursday morning. I had pad locks on it. The site was secured by Thursday. We're going through the protocol. We are trying to find out what is going on with the asbestos to find out what our process is. And at 5:15 Friday evening, I get Derf at my door, showing me this letter on how incompetent and irresponsible I am, and I am reading this shaking, thinking, I can't believe this is happening. I called Felix Lee. I said, "Felix, I feel like there is misrepresentation on what facts you have gathered." Felix Lee wasn't even in town this day. It was prepared by his staff and signed by his staff. I talked to Sam later in the week when this came. I said, "Sam, what happened?" And he said, quote, "I can't believe it." He said, quote, "They put that stuff from Raven View in your report?". I said, "Yes." He said, "Hmm, they must not like you" end of quote. So I am not suggesting that no one likes me. I am just saying there seems to be all this energy about my incompetence and about my regard for authority under a modest, a modest mistake regarding demolition while trying to solve the mandate from the City, to protect the community from a dilapidated building, that was dilapidated due to trespassers from people on our property, that we chose not to press charges against. The whole thing seems odd. And I am sitting here today, my suspense, my license has been suspended for 30 days and I am sitting before you guys today, with my tail between my legs thinking, sorry, what do I do? Furthermore, I was surprised to see, there was an inspection report in this document that clearly outlines incompetence. It clearly is intended to be included as not passing, and inspections cancelled. If you look at the dates, it happened inside five weeks. When you have six building permits, and trying to follow the protocol, that Sam has asked for, this protocol, one of these inspections was my plumber who said he called in all six inspections. Great. He got to his fourth building and said, "Dave, I don't have anymore test equipment, can you please not, can you call and tell Sam that the other two won't be done?" I said, "Well, he will be here in a few minutes, I will just tell him." Ok. So when he go to the job site, "Sam, the last two buildings aren't tested, because we can't get tester equipment, we ran out of test equipment." "No problem, I will just look where you are." But yet here it is, in an effort to illustrate incompetence. Furthermore, it was hard to read this, but I looked long and hard, looked at every page, I looked at every single page in this document. I successfully completed two custom homes over a million dollars in Fossil Lake Ranch, during this time. And, it is interestingly that that was not in anywhere here presented as a form of competence. I had three inspections, excuse me, on one house I had two inspections. My engineer did all of the proper protocol for the grading and foundation inspections. I had one inspection, a rough framing, for all the components. Framing, mechanical, plumbing, electrical, energize of power, underground this, underground that. The inspector was there for 35 to 45 minutes thoroughly, passed with flying colors. Same thing happened on another building in the subdivision. So again, I am seeing this document and feeling that I am being unjustly accused of incompetence and lack of regard to authority. Lee: Mr. Houts, where is, where does the asbestos evaluation stand? BRB March 27, 2008 Pg. 11 Houts: It's done. It's been abated and it's been totally done. It's been given a clean bill of health. We have gone through the whole state process and it's currently asbestos free. Lee: And it was abated by a certified professional? Houts: By Monarch Services who is a state qualified asbestos contractor. Lee: Do you know what they found? Houts: They found some asbestos. Ironically it's relatively easy and would have cost me about $5,000 to eradicate it had the building not been vandalized. But, because it had been vandalized and inadvertently been demoed on one corner, it cost me $40,000. So, it cost me $35,000 because of a, I was trying to expeditiously handle the concern about the dilapidated building. To answer your question shortly, all asbestos has been removed, it's a clean bill of health and it's been verified as done. Lee: Was there a significant amount? I am just trying to establish Houts: Well, there's a 2,000 square foot ranch and about two hundred square feet of ceiling was damaged through, not through our salvaging of materials, but through the vandalizing, through the trespassing, which, when you airborne that, anything it touches is considered contaminated. So, you couldn't just scrape this off and put it in a bag and haul it. All the insulation that it hit the floor with, got airborne and got the whole house contaminated, so we had to deal with the whole house as a contaminated property. Interestingly, primarily because, to some degree because of the trespassers who created additional damage to the building and compounded with my inadvertent enthusiasm to tear up the building. Lee: Do you have anymore to add? Hours: Just a couple. I said a lot of stuff. My goal is to be compliant. My goal is to not do anything to knowingly or deliberately disregard the building code. My intent is not to fail to comply. I have no intent to fail to comply to anything the City outlines. I have no intent to do anything that is not properly permitted and I certainly have no intent to act negligently or incompetently or without regard to authority to bring anybody into a public safety issue. None. I find it ironic that we have a building that everyone left alone and it was no issue. As soon as trespassers came in and started making it their parry house and provided the actual damage, there was significant damage to the basement. Walls, closet doors broken in half, windows broken, it's like holy cow. All of a sudden, we have three days to rid this community of this nuisance. And in MY effort to respond to that, a portion of the building got inadvertently demoed in three minutes. And here I am today, after having my license suspended for 30 days, trying to explain to you that I am a good guy trying to do things the right way. So, I am asking you to consider reinstating my licenses. My D 1 and my C2. Furthermore, this whole episode in my effort to diligently deal with this building of nuisance is going to cost me $35,000 out of my pocket, because of my enthusiasm to solve a problem. I would like to think that's discipline enough. I would like to go back to work, continue the work on the projects that I currently have under building permit in the City of Fort Collins, and make a way for my family. That is the conclusion of my comments. Lee: So in terms of the process, I appreciate your frustration. I don't think there was any intent to cause anybody extra expense. The issue was that, I guess my question for you is, if the demo had BRB March 27, 2008 Pg. 12 proceeded any further, without our intervention, would there have been probable asbestos released into the air? Houts: For clarity, I made that call before your department even showed up. The excavation contractor was being contacted by me and the operator of the excavator was being contacted by his boss to stop now. "Pull the excavator away from the house and work on stumps until Dave gets there." I hung up the phone with Gene and the next call was from Sam saying did you know. I said, "Yes, I've been on it. I am sorry. I will be there in a few minutes." So if you're wondering if my lack of management, or my incompetence or my disregard to authority, would have caused great public harm, the answer is no. It was already put in motion. The mistake occurred when I was in route and it would have stopped. It was already being stopped before your department intervened. Lee: On a further, I guess further clarification, you mentioned the inspection report. It was not intended to demonstrate or suggest incompetence. It really was to highlight the issue in the middle of the page. Houts: I understand. I apologize if I took it bigger, but it seemed that was the intent. Lee: This really was to let you know, that was part of the inspection. Houts: Just so you know, Felix, this document, that's three lines tall and seven inches wide, is this long on paper in handwriting that says do not insulate, amongst a bunch of other notes. It's not as indicative as it is here, firstly. Secondly, there was never an intent to not insulate and proceed. It was a, I was working with the understanding that I had made with Sam that I had made in previous units. So, just so you know. So I apologize of accusing you of something you didn't intend. Lee: Well again, I think the whole thing was precipitated by the demolition underway and we reacted. Houts: Also for clarity, gentlemen, I didn't, like a thief in the night, bring in the excavator, to try and get this done, so no one would notice. The grading contractor was contacted directly by the owner, to come and do the over lot grading and grubbing, and he said I can do the demo while I am out there. That mobilization was already being put in motion and we tried to twist it around and get it working early so we could deal with a 2 '/2 day deadline to eradicate the building. Just know that. Lee: Thank you. I would like to call a witness. I guess I don't have my procedure in front of me. Smilie: I am not exactly sure what the order should be for calling that witness, but I think basically if it is more information germane to the case I think we should probably allow the witness at this time. Lee: Mr. Houts would be free to cross. I'd like to call, I feel like I am in court here, Inspector Sam Hancock to the podium, if you would Sam, and identify, just for the record, who you are. Hancock: I am Sam Hancock, Lead Building Inspector for the City of Fort Collins. BRB March 27, 2008 Pg. 13 Lee: Sam, I just want to clarify a couple of things, and I know you weren't here for Mr. Houts' earlier testimony but, he indicates that he was, he called to stop the excavation or the demolition of the building in question, when he found out that it had already started, and tried to stop it as soon as he could, and that you dispatched Ron Zarembinski to the site. Was he out there nearby? Hancock: This was all part of the Derf Green scenario where he was supposed to be in charge of making sure the building was secured and I sent Ron Zarembinski by to check on the building. Lee: Oh, just to check its status. Hancock: To see what the status was on the building, if it was secured. At about that same time, I was on the phone with Dave. We were talking about Raven View. I think at the end of that conversation, I brought up, I said, "What's the status on the Strauss Cabin house" and he said he had, I think ordered the excavators to come over, but they were just going to do trees and concrete. They weren't going to touch the building. I think he might have made a comment something to the effect of, "Well, I think they caught the corner." I said, Well, you stopped them, right?" He said, "Yea." I said, "Ok, fine." I no more hung up the phone with Dave and Ron Zarembinski called me and tells me that a quarter of the house is gone. I don't know if you gentlemen have the pictures or not, but those are the pictures Ron took at that point in time. And I said, "You're kidding." He said, "No, a quarter of the house is gone, not just a corner, a quarter." I said, "Well, ok, we need to post it, stop it." As it turned out, Ron didn't post it or stop work order it that day. We went back a day or so later and actually stop worked the project at that point. The excavator, the gentleman that was running the equipment, pretty much all shut down once Ron arrived on scene. But, a quarter of the house was gone at that point and, as far as I know, no permits at that time. So that is why we maybe, one or two days later, I don't have dates, we actually went out and posted it after he got his fence up and secured the property. Houts: So for clarity, we had a couple of issues. We were trying to secure the safety of the building that was open and a public risk and I was trying to demo it so that all that would be mitigated. And then all this came together, so Derf was the inspector in charge of making sure it was secured or demoed by the end, by the Thursday deadline he had outlined. Just for clarity. Hancock: I think Derf was working with Mike on this, and Mike had wanted the building secured and had ordered Derf to kind of take over, but we sent Ron Zarembinski out to check on it that particular day. Houts: Mike was out of town that week, so the staff was juggled around to cover all the responsibilities of the City. Lee: So, I guess for the benefit of the Board, do you have any questions at this point for further clarification? Smilie: Well my questions would have primarily to do with the sequencing of how the inspections went on Raven View Road, because we were led to believe that there had been a prior sequencing of going through these units. As I understand it, they are attached, fee simple town homes, to get the inspections to kind of progress down the line in sequence with the drywall and insulation efforts, so there wouldn't be anything out of the ordinary to what was red tagged. And, supposedly the work done was very minor, at least as described by the respondent BRB March 27, 2008 Pg. 14 or the appellant, who described small pieces of drywall and very small pieces of insulation. Is that accurate? Hancock: On the last two units that I issued stop work orders for, for proceeding beyond inspection, the last two units I believe are 2002 and 2008, we had inspected and still had fairly substantial lists on those last two units on the permit cards. Also in the documentation it states, do not insulate, each of those two units. I hadn't seen any activity for a few days or weeks, so on a whim I stopped by one day, rolled into those two units and was very surprised to find that 2008 was insulated and dry walled. 2002 was totally insulated and dry wall sitting on the floor ready to go. That's when I issued the stop work orders not to proceed since he had basically proceeded beyond inspections. Houts: For clarity, and first of all, I have the utmost respect for Sam. Professionally, he does a great job. He represents the community wonderfully and he's a great mediator between the building office and the building community for the sake of public, so none of my comments are in any way, shape, or form intended to be derogatory or challenging professionally or personally. Sam does a great job. Sam, as you know, we had some pretty low temperatures that particular time of year. The issues at hand, If I recall, were front porch posting, some strapping on a landing that was not found on the first four units, but discovered on the last two units. There may have been a minor thing, but the electrical was signed off and plumbing was signed off. And so if you recall, I had called in that inspection and waited all afternoon, excuse me, I waited into the afternoon to meet with you, because we had talked about always meeting you, just to walk through the dynamics of this unique condition. You were running behind, you were understaffed, it was raining, it was freezing cold. I said, "I gotta go, Sam, the cards are here." Does that ring a bell at all? Hancock: No Houts: And I don't necessarily think it should, but that's what happened. The permit cards were stuck underneath the, between the dry wall sheets and dry wall. Furthermore, Sam, part of the sequencing and please, Sam, correct me if I am making inaccurate recollections, was dry walling one side of the common wall, so that we could blow in the insulation against that, inspect it and then rock the opposite side of the wall. It was difficult for my dry wall contractor to separate how many, how much 5/8 for one side of one common wall so he loaded all six units. Not to violate the progress that was outlined, but to keep the efficiencies moving and I don't believe that there is a violation in progress by putting drywall on the sub floor of the structure. So although I respect Sam's observation, I haven't been out in a while and I saw drywall loaded, I got the impression that he was proceeding without authorization, therefore I felt no other option than to formally stop him. I respect that. As I told you before, Sam you got here, I saw there might be some violations and I told the guy stop, go home and told myself, when I get heat on, when I can actually start working in the buildings, without sub, I will figure out what those violations are, I will call you and say, "Sam, sorry about that. I pulled some drywall off come look at that." I never made that call. We never had that correspondence once because you stopped, because the heat has still not been on. So that's the, that was the, was it different than what you think? Hancock: The only thing I can say to that comment was we did agree, for you to rock one side of the common walls, so that you could spray your insulation on. It was the last two units that we were concerned with, that you went beyond inspection. BRB March 27, 2008 Pg. 15 Houts: Sam, I respect that. Hispanic crews don't understand English, they look at you, you think you're ahight, you leave the job site for a day and a half and the next thing you know stuffs covered. What do you do? I didn't intend to do anything. I don't know what to say. I stopped, I fixed it. There was a question about whether or not the inspections were called in again. The letter says the results from subsequent inspections will be provided now. All buildings are rocked, they are textured and they are being trimmed and they have been fully approved. Packard: I have a question. Mr. Houts, you referred to a letter that you received from the City. You held it up, but I don't know which one it was there. I know you have several documents. You indicated that when Sam saw that letter, he made a comment that he couldn't believe they included all that in the letter. Houts: The quote was "They included that. Hmmm." End of quote Packard: Do you recall that Sam? Hancock: I am not even sure what letter you are referring to. Lee: It's the notice of violation and in that we have an attachment of background information that mentions the proceeding without the inspection violation. Hancock: This top one that is basically the Strauss Cabin. Lee: No at the bottom of. It's the second paragraph from the bottom of summary of allegations and background information, or the fourth one down. Hancock: I guess my question is when did I make this statement? Houts: Sam, if you recall, when this hit the fan, we were still, I called the office immediately. Felix Lee was not in that day. Delynn took the call and she said quote, "Felix said it would be ok for you to proceed with construction of Raven View." I said, "Ok, thank you." I, the next week called, made an inspection request as I do often; I call you in the morning and say, "Hey, Sam, we got some more Raven View stuff coming in." I said, "Did you know that I was, my license was suspended?" and you said, "No, I didn't know it." And then I said, it was a phone conversation on the morning you were coming out for an inspection, and then I said, "Did you know they included the Raven View stop work order in part of that?" And you said, "Hmm no, I didn't know that" or something to the "hmmm really they did that?" And then you said, "You kind of really messed up on that demo building and it doesn't surprise me that they pulled up other records and batched it all together." That's what you told me. And I said, "Well anyway, no intention was made. Nothing was intentional. I'll see you at the job site 9:30 to 10:00." and you said, "Great." So that was the conversation we had. Hancock: I don't remember it, but. Packard: Thank you. Smilie: I have a couple questions. A couple issues with this thing. Number one, the building in question, the house that was damaged by vandalism, should have been secured in some fashion long before the vandals got in there. So while you can blame them for causing the problem, you BRB March 27, 2008 Pg. 16 can blame yourself and or the owners for not fencing it, securing it, otherwise boarding it up, making it inaccessible. The whole story has been in the paper numerous times, during that same period of time, about the four-plex that burned down, down on Manhattan that had been boarded up, and kids kept breaking into it. So, the issue is not an un-public issue about securing dangerous buildings and any open building is an attractive nuisance to kids. Number two, I don't see anything in this letter that seeks to declare you incompetent nor is this a competency examination today. We are here to basically look at violations of the building code and for that reason, it is fairly customary for members of this Board to request of Delynn any other violations that are on record, in your file, which is probably why these two stop work orders were put into the record, especially since there had been a previous violation of the building code on the units in question. So I think it was a little bit shaky grounds to start complaining about them including these in the record. Houts: Sir, I am just, it says the fourth item of the violations, it says the word point blank, incompetence and so, I am not necessarily accusing anybody of anything. I have the utmost regard for the entire staff and the process. I just want to make sure, it's hard not to feel challenged when all you are trying to do is a good job for everyone involved. Smilie: I also have a question if you were not the contractor of record, how come you got stuck with $35,000 worth of mitigation. Houts: Because I feel personally responsible this happened. I am an un, I am a builder who has optioned further lots and the owner trusts me. We have a great relationship and I am gonna pay him in the form of increased lot purchases. I said, "Kelly, I am sorry, I feel to some degree responsible for this. It wasn't intentional, but I don't want to stick it with you." Smilie: Board? Schneider: Who is the builder of record for that property? I mean, there's not a permit or is there somebody that's responsible. Lee: Which property? Houts: The Strauss property. Schneider: The cabin, yeah. Lee: Is there a permit in place? There isn't. Houts: There is a development construction permit through the Planning & Zoning Department, for the development of this 5 acre lot, to make seven lots. And we went through the whole pre construction process. That process does not yield title, to a formal general contractor. The owner is the owner of record, the subcontractor is registered and the construction manager is registered. That process doesn't outline a specific contractor or general contractor. Schneider: And so you are a project manager? Houts: Construction manager. BRB March 27, 2008 Pg. 17 Schneider: Construction manager for that. Have you ever demolished or removed? Houts: Never. I have been a new home builder and office buildings for 14 years in Fort Collins. This is the first building, I have been even remotely attached to, to having to demo, which is not an excuse. Schneider: Sure. Houts: And with the other thing. Sorry, if I may say, we had an hour and a half pre -construction DCP permit meeting, which includes planners, erosion control, all the bodies, all the powers that be to administer. During that entire hour and a half meeting, no concern or reservation was brought up about this existing building, so again, not to blame anybody, but there was never an intent to do this not properly. It just never came up. Schneider: It's not their job either to tell you the process. Houts: It was. I didn't say it was, but everyone does something for the first time. Schneider: I understand. And in doing something for the first time, well that's beside the point. Have you submitted the letter from the State of Colorado, stating the fact that the asbestos has, the site is free and clear, and that is in the hands of City of Fort Collins? Houts: No, because the process, by which to submit the application is still underway. So, I don't know what. So the site gets cleaned, the environmentalist confirms it is clean, fills out the application, everyone fills out their part, it's taken to Denver. Schneider: When was that all, when was that done? Houts: It was cleaned, it was cleaned as of last Tuesday. It was registered and tested and given a clean bill of health by last Thursday. Schneider: And the folks that did the abatement have a letter that states that everything is cleaned? Houts: They have filed their paperwork. They're out of Denver. They have filed the paperwork with the state and it is all finalized and approved. I do not have a copy of that. Smilie: I have a question for Felix, then. When a state agency is called in or calls in a contractor to do abatement on the nature of removing an entire house that has been contaminated, does that not still require a demolition permit from the City or does the state take over at that point. Lee: Yes, it does. Smilie: So, was that permit issued? Lee: That's part of our process. We notify people that there is a state process for any demolition. They should be mindful of that early on in the process. Smilie: The permit was then issued to demolish the house? BRB March 27, 2008 Pg. 18 Lee: I don't think so. Houts: Just for clarity. Just so I understand. Are you telling me that the City has a multiple day process, once they get the application for permit to notify the public? Is that what you just said? Lee: No. What I am saying is that, to demolish any building requires.... Houts: The state's approval Lee: And a City build, a City demolition permit. And part of the demolition permit process, well you probably have the application, for a demolition permit through the City, requires that it be reviewed by the state. There's a period of time. Houts: I want to make, because I was told when I was handed the document in the fury of the activity, to go to the state and get this taken care of and then the City will issue the demo permit over the counter. That is what I was told. So, that's the first time, I asked, "Does the DCP cover the demolition and structures on the development property?" "No." "What do I need to do?" "Here's the demo permit package and you go through the state process and our permit is over the counter." "Okay." From that process, I discovered this whole journey and said stop, but he was there. So that's how real time, this all happened. Lee: So, I guess I would like to establish that. There is still no City permit for the demolition, or there is? Coldiron: There wouldn't be. If we don't have the state stuff back, we wouldn't have issued a demo permit yet. Schneider: You can apply. Going through this process several times, you apply for the demo permit; you get your asbestos results back. Any structure that was built prior to 1978 needs to have asbestos clarification or have no asbestos to meet minimum standards for the state, the state signs off on it, we hand that certificate back to the City of Fort Collins. The City of Fort Collins is happy to release that permit as soon as they have the sign off from the state. Hours: All I am saying, just for the record, I walked in the door, I said, "Does a DCP cover buildings on the site for development?" "No." And from her desk, she said, "The documents right over there, it's over the counter, go take care of your stuff from the state and we issue our permit over the counter." That is what I was instructed. "Okay. Thank you." I got the piece of paperwork, went back to my office to figure out how hard and how fast I can get my demo permit to deal with this building that was a problem. Schneider: But in the demo permit package, it clearly states that you need to have a sign off for any demolition. Houts: I know. I started that whole process and it happened like that. In an effort to try to get the building handled, it happened like that. So, I, this whole thing is like, holy cow. I had no idea what I was playing with. BRB March 27, 2008 Pg. 19 Schneider: Did Schmidt Earth Builders, did they ask for the demo permit, prior to them actually touching the structure? Hours: I don't recall. I don't think he asked me specifically for the demo permit. He said, "Is everything in order?" I said, "I have a DCP. I am not sure what exactly it takes for the demo. I'll find that out, but let's mobilize, because we can work under the DCP and stay off the building if that's off, if there's any delay with that." I will take full responsibility for not handling that more critically. Not communicating more diligently with Schmidt. My presence here today is in no way, shape, or form intended to side step responsibility or blame. It literally is a diligent effort to deal with the building and that diligence got us ahead of that protocol a little bit. Smilie: Well this all still goes back to securing the building, because even after the housing people issued the unsafe building status, the simplest and fastest way would be to fence the thing with portable, temporary fencing and have it be secured in that fashion until all the permits are secured and everything is in place to go ahead and demolish. Hours: You're right. So, when I got notification, I received the letter addressed to him on Monday, three days before the building was supposed to be handled, I called Derf, said, "I got your letter, we are sorry for the hassle. We are going to try to comply and get this thing safe before Thursday" and he said, "Great." So, we were putting that whole thing in motion. Because we had the excavation in motion, because the mobilization for the development was in motion, we decided, let's just go ahead and demo it. And the observation was made naively, not knowing that I was going into a whole house of cards. Schneider: Sam. Question for you, in your dealings with the contractor. Credible? Follows through? Does stuff that he says he is going to do? Doesn't try to, if you ask for repairs, it's done in full, it's not a multiple repair? There's proof here of repeated offenses with stop orders being issued. Can you comment on the skills and abilities and the professionalism that you see out in the field, since you're in the field dealing with him? Hancock: First experience has been with Raven View and the six-plex. Six permits. Up front, originally there were quite a few items that were listed for correction. The lists were pretty much similar all the way through all six units. Corrections were made over time. They weren't immediate, but over time they were done. It's seems like it has taken a long time on Raven View. I don't understand that, you know, being used to the fast pace, boom, boom. You turn something down one day it's corrected the next day and you're sailing off on something else, but this particular six-plex seems to have taken a long time. The corrections are made. The building itself is substantial, but it just seems like it takes a long time to get the corrections made and finally get down to that last little bit where you can turn loose insulation and dry wall. Gust: I have a question, Sam. Is it the same, when you get a set of plans in, you get six units and there is one problem, then it becomes, it stacks up all of the time. So was it a design problem or maybe installation problem, but it was the same problem all the way through? If it would have been one building it wouldn't have been, you wouldn't have saw this thing that just kept going on. Is that right or not? Hancock: Well, it's kind of a, it's a leaming curve, when you get a six-plex or twelve-plex like that. They tend to make the same mistakes in the first few units, until they get corrected and then they, most people, will pick up after that. Those corrections have been made on the next six, so BRB March 27, 2008 Pg. 20 it's kind of a learning curve scenario. And if you have something like this, you will tend to see the trades make the same mistake over and over. I don't know if there is any number, a magic number where they finally figure it out. If let's say inspections had been made on one, chances are they would not have been made on the second, or third, and then from there on down. I think we tried to do multiple inspections or multiple permits as we went in. So we did not see these units one and then the another. We saw them after the trades had been in for quite some time and obviously they made the same mistakes. Those corrections were called and they were pretty specific, I think. I don't know, do they have the result sheets for all six permits in front of them? Okay. If you looked at those results sheets on those six permits, you would have almost a carbon copy, is what I am trying to say, because we did not get in ahead enough to catch up if you will, or get the list made so that they could correct down stream. Houts: We did go through, upon the first inspection, the framing of all six units. And the list was very similar from unit to unit. And then, we inspected the roughs of the ones that we had test equipment for. And that process, we tried to work ahead of the inspections and not let the inspector be a quality assurance, but actually try to forecast ahead of him. When we re -inspected, we did them individually. So although there were issues out there on units 4, 5 and 6, 3, 4 and 5, we couldn't address them. We chose to do them individually as we were sequencing down the road, down the building line. So, I understand why Sam would think that it took longer, cuz we just had to keep working the whole system. And we had a pretty good system. I called in inspections, he would show up, and it would often be, "Well, it's not what I got here." I said, "Well, I called them in." He said, "Well, that's not uncommon. What do you got?" And we would go through one by one and deal with the issues of that particular building. And a given issue might be one wall. Schneider: Are you the on -site manager also? Houts: Yes. Schneider: And you are there daily and with the subs? Houts: Not hourly, but daily. And we are here because I was not at Strauss Cabin Road hourly Smilie: Any other questions from the Board? Felix, do you any final comments or questions? Lee: I guess I would defer to Mr. Houts for final comments that he may have. Hours: So I have to ask this question because I think it's appropriate, because I think this is all the question in every one of your minds. And maybe this is professional suicide, but I have to ask the question. I feel like this was a learning curve. I felt that I was trying to respond to Mr. Smilie's comment about the building so, I am like squinting because I don't have on my glasses. He's right. The course of salvage over, that happened over the summer, a door at a time, a cabinet at a time and it was winter before we really assessed the condition of the open home. So again, it wasn't intentional. It was just one of those things that kept occurring and no one was paying attention to. But Felix felt it necessary to put my licenses on hold until we did this meeting. I have to ask Sam. Obviously, every inspection has a journey; every building inspector has a journey. You follow the rules, you do the work, you get passed, you fail, you don't proceed. But professionally, do you have a problem with me building in the City of Fort Collins? BRB March 27, 2008 Pg. 21 Hancock: My only concern would be taking care of business Houts: If I asked another inspector the same question, the inspector that did my custom homes in Fossil Lake Ranch, he would say no. Two inspections, CO's, so I am not, I'm just, the goal here is, I learned, I am paying literally. I would like that to be the course of discipline, and I would like to go continue making a living for my family and try to provide housing, quality housing in the City of Fort Collins. Smilie: Do I hear a finding of fact or... Packard: Here's, well here, I just have a comment. Lee: Do I get a final here? Smilie: Oh, okay. I didn't realize you were reserving the right to comment after he commented. Lee: I guess it's sitting here, thinking about what David has said, and having his livelihood on the line, is very concerning to all, I am sure. It's not taken lightly. I guess it's really up to you to decide what the finding of facts are and what, if any, discipline is in order. I mean there are always mitigating factors, I don't deny that, but I would say that, in my opinion, the Respondent has violated at least the last three items on the list and they are pretty general. Failure to obtain a permit and I do believe item 7 in this case. It was obvious this house did have asbestos in it and it could have been worse, certainly, but it did, at some point, pose a risk, and it was open for some time. It should have been secured before it was violated and vandalized. So that's my comment. Smilie: Okay for those members of the Board, especially the new members, our first order of business following the testimony and examination is to find fact on the four issues, 1, 2, 6 and 7. Subsequent to finding of fact, we can dispose of the rest of the matter in terms of suspension, revocation, reinstatement, how ever the Board feels fit, but the first item is to actually find a finding of fact for those four issues. Packard: Well I can make a motion for a finding of fact. As to item 1, knowing or 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, I find there is a violation. As to item 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, I find there is a violation. With regard to item 6, failure to obtain any required permit for the work performed or to be performed, I find there is a violation. Item 7, commitment of any act of negligence and competence or misconduct in the performance of the contractor specific trade, which results in posing a threat to public health and safety, I find there is a violation. Smilie: Do I hear a second to that? Carr: I'll second that. Smilie: Any discussion, comment, interjection? BRB March 27, 2008 Pg. 22 Packard: Here is my concern. I am looking at in about a six month period, three violations. And it seems like all I have to do is to look at the past behavior to predict the future behavior and I don't like what I am seeing. In no way, shape, or form, do I like it. While I don't know that I am ready to make a recommendation just yet, I'd like to hear other comments from the Board. But, boy if we let the record stand on its own merits, I think we know what we have to do. Cram: I guess I would like to emphasize that during that time period, he was under a six month license suspension. So these violations had to of occurred, if my calculations are correct, from August 30 would have been to January 30a , would have been the suspension. And I see on here that some of this goes into mid -January. Smilie: Well to clarify that, we allowed him to complete those projects. The six-plex, during the time he was suspended. So those were all valid construction related activities for which he was entitled to perform that work. Gust: This is probably odd coming from me, but to me it seems like, I don't see that there are violations at all in any of those. I don't think that it's really proven totally that it was. I look at this, and I may be naive here, but just looking at all of the information from both sides here, it seems like there have been a lot of circumstances here, some good, some bad. I personally would look at, and maybe this is not the point here, but I would look at reinstating the license immediately and finishing those projects and then the next, if there was another project that you would like to do, you would have to come to the Board for that. We did, we allowed this, the six- plex, and I think we should continue to get that finished, as well as this other part, but maybe the next one, we should then really look at that hard, if you wanted to work in the city again. That's the way I look at this. But I don't see that these violations are really proven to be, that he was actually doing them on purpose. I don't see that at all. That's my opinion. Smilie: To some degree, I agree with that. He should have been way more careful than he was and somebody should have secured the building. But, he does have a point that he was not actually under contract to be doing any work on that job, which basically means, he shouldn't have been ordering anybody in there to even stand by. I think there's some fault here. I am not sure I agree with the finding of fault on item 1. I think the rest, at least indirectly, we could find fault with. Any other comments? Schneider: The problem I'm having is two -fold. One is that he's not necessarily the contractor on the demo permit, because there is no demo permit, but he willingly took on the obligations and the responsibilities to coordinate work to be done. So, that's where my issue is, is he technically the contractor listed? I don't know if I can answer that, but I think he proceeded without having enough evidence and proof. I understand this is the first time, but we've all been through the first time and doing enough background checking to know what you are supposed to do and not do prior to proceeding, even if it is the first time. I know the first one I did, I had to delay the whole project by a month because I thought it would be a slam dunk. So I understand that. So I agree that, I don't know if there is any deliberate misconduct, but there definitely was a lot of naive ness that went on and I think the pressure, the excitement to move the project forward, is costing him now and that's, you know, sometimes the school of hard knocks is the best school out there. But I guess I am having a problem with necessarily number 1 per say, with the deliberate portion of it. BRB March 27, 2008 Pg. 23 Smilie: Any other comment from the Board? Would there be any reason for anybody to want to do a friendly amendment, to remove item number 1 from consideration? Carr: I so move. I guess there's sufficient doubt about number 1. Smilie: Is that acceptable to the original maker of the motion? Packard: That is acceptable to me. Smilie: I forget who seconded that. Then, I think it is time to call for a vote on those. Yeas: Carr, Packard, Cram, Smilie, Smith, Schneider Nays: Gust Smilie: Okay. That has completed the finding of fact. We found, no on number 1, yes on number 2, yes on number 6 and yes on number 7. Now, the disposition issue comes to the question of what do we do now? I am open to suggestions, motions, discussion. Gust: Again, I think I would like to have both projects completed, and that we look at it in any future projects, that David come to the Board if he wants to do work in the City of Fort Collins. Smilie: Delynn, are any of those units in that building, for that six-plex finalled out, or are they all subject to a final inspection? Delynn: I am going to defer to Sam on that one. He probably knows. Lee: Dave would know, I guess. Houts: They are all three, they're pending finals. Smilie: So, no final inspections have been conducted? Houts: Correct. Smilie: Well, I certainly don't see any objections to finishing that building. I think it is an unnecessary financial hardship to the City and other subcontractors that are involved primarily on that project to suspend his ability to complete that building. Schneider: So was there a motion? Smilie: I don't think we've come to a motion yet, no. Schneider: I agree with the fact the he needs to complete the stuff that he's started, meaning the six-plex. I guess there is question about the demolition, if he would be the contractor listed to complete that demolition work or not. I guess is there, is it two -fold. Is it, you would like to see him listed as the contractor for both or just to finish the six-plex? BRB March 27, 2008 Pg. 24 Smilie: Well, I don't think there is an existing issue with the Strauss Cabin Road. It's my understanding that project is not completed as a subdivision, so there is no permit other than development permit that was pulled on that property. Houts: Just the demo permit. Smilie: The demo permit has not been done? Houts: The final City demo permit, as a result of getting all of the state approvals. Gust: So right now, the building is standing there? Houts: Waiting for the City. Waiting for the state and waiting for the City. Smilie: I don't think he is a licensed demo contractor anyway, is he? Schneider: D-1, yeah. Lee: So I understood, maybe I misunderstood Mr. Houts, isn't the site cleaned up and the building gone? Houts: No Lee: Oh, no, it's not. Houts: It's abated. It's free of asbestos. Smilie: Yeah, I misunderstood that too. Houts: There is a state process protocol to go through and then get the municipality to issue the demo permit. Lee: Then we will just issue it, as soon as we get that. Houts: So, the question is, will I or won't I be authorized to pull the demo permit? Lee: Well, certainly his license does allow that. As the general contractor for that work, he can demo as well. Smilie: Then, I guess it is up to whoever makes the motion, as to whether or not the demo permit and the six-plex completion are included in the motion. Gust: I will make a motion that we reinstate both licenses at this time so the Respondent can finish and complete both projects; the demolition and the six-plex, and that any further work here in the City of Fort Collins, are contingent on him coming before the Board before he gets such project to review his license at that time. Smilie: Delynn, do you understand the nature of that motion? BRB March 27, 2008 Pg. 25 Lee: Just for clarification Mike, you're suggesting that we, for clarity here for the sake of the record, prior to any other work in the City of Fort Collins, that the Respondent make a formal request before the Board to review the project and review his license? Gust: I think I want to. I want him to keep his license, but I would expect him to come before the Board, maybe with some courses on ethics, things like that, that would make us feel comfortable that yeah, he understands situations and he can continue to work in the City of Fort Collins. Eckman: Is that basically a suspension of his license, except for these pending projects? Gust: I guess. Well, I don't think it is a suspension. I am trying to say that we want to suspend it, then we reinstate it at that time, or that he has to come before the Board, if he wants to do another job and we decide whether or not we want to suspend it at that time, because we will have more information on these last two projects that will be completed and it will be kind of a clean slate. We're not boggled down with two projects. Smilie: So it's basically a partial reinstatement that allows him to complete work on the six-plex and the Strauss Cabin demolition project prior to doing any other work in the City. He'd be required to come before the Board and convince us that he has really got his act together well enough to proceed with pulling additional permits, I think is really what the gist of it is. Eckman: It sounds like a suspension to me. Smilie: It's a partial suspension. It's a partial reinstatement, a partial suspension. It's kind of a carrot and a stick. Schneider: But there is no question about the six-plex at this time. He's able to perform the work and continue with that, but the suspension is because of the demolition. So I guess does his license stay suspended because of the work that was done on Strauss Cabin? The six-plex is history, past history, or evidence if you want to call it that. The question is because of the suspension of his licenses, because of the demolition work he performed or managed or however you want to call it. That is why is his licenses is suspended. Smilie: If we were looking at only the demolition, without any past history, there probably would not have been a suspension motion. Had it just been the six-plex stop work orders, it probably wouldn't be anything except a letter in his file. The letter in his file, the previous suspension and the demo work, all basically come up to a totality that says, we'll allow you to finish the projects at hand, then we want you back in front of the Board to basically make us feel comfortable with your ability to continue. Schneider: I guess part of my question for that though, is don't we need to give him some sort of guidance as how he can prove that, and in what form in order to prove to us that, you know he's tested, taken classes, what have you, so we have something to reference or gauge by? Cram: I think part of it would be his performance, especially on the six-plex. It's not finished. I guess the thing that really has me frustrated is, during the time that he was given the suspension to finish those, he continued to have problems. So, at this point, if he really in fact is going to make the turn around, then it ought to be pretty clean from here on out to finish the six. So I think those kind of things are indicative then of a change in approach, a change in conduct. BRB March 27, 2008 Pg. 26 Smilie: I think I would agree. And it would not probably hurt to follow the suggestion that was not part of the motion to come in with some kind of training, some kind of ethics classes, some kind of background, take an IRC class, do something that makes us certain that your competency in the future is going to be more uniform, your attention to detail is going to be more complete, that you're not going to jump off the cliff simply because there is a time limit on how fast you can get there. It's much safer to walk around the cliff, land at the bottom safely, than jump off, see what happens when you get there. So do I hear a second to the motion? Eckman: Might I ask, if I were to listen to this and I were David, I would wonder what training I am supposed to go to, I think. He's obviously not going to have anymore experience in the City, except for the experience of finishing up that demolition on that project I guess, and getting permits on that six-plex or certificate of occupancies. So I would be a little puzzled as to what I am supposed to do and so I think there ought to be specific criteria layed out by the Board as to what it takes to get a full license back. Whether that means this is a suspension or some kind of a partial revocation, I don't think I care what the terminology is that you ascribe to it as long as it is made clear to him what he must do, what hoops he needs to go through in order to get back in good graces. I guess that's my only suggestion for now, so you can deliberate over that. Packard: I was wondering, Alex or Delynn, is there something that you feel might be beneficial? I mean, I get the impression David, and I might be wrong, but I think I get the impression you see the Building Department as your enemy. Houts: I do not. Packard: Ok. Well they are not your enemy. They are here to help you Houts: I said that clearly early on. They do not. Packard: I just wonder if maybe there's not something Felix or Delynn might feel would be beneficial. I mean, I don't know if it's just not familiarity with the codes that's part of the extenuating circumstances or... Lee: I guess I will jump in here. I don't know where to go with this one. I mean, I don't know where to give you any kind of advice or my ideas about, because I don't know what training. He has already passed the exams and met the criteria for the licenses. I don't know what else to do. It looks like David has some input he wishes provide, maybe that's... Houts: I don't know what the protocol is here, but I just want to interject that Mr. Cream's suggestion, I think is the appropriate one. I think I have done over 700 projects with every protocol imagined. I have never been before a board, ever, in 14 years in Norther Colorado and ten years prior to that, ever. Every license I ever had has never been revoked until I got involved with the six-plex, as I was misguided about the permitting and the licensing procedures that it has. And that has opened up a whole can of worms for me. I sat here and got my, the back of my head smacked because of my direct and intentional violation of the permit code. I am just sitting here taking my whooping. So it just, I still just find myself still just shaking my head, how has this happened. All I am trying to do is be responsible to my family, responsible to the community and get stuff done. I believe that competence is not the issue. I believe that if there is doubt amongst you people, I have regard for authority. Do I value the role that the building official BRB March 27, 2008 Pg. 27 has? And that answer is yes. I believe I support your position. I think Mr. Alan Cram's recommendation that I come back to here with successfully completed projects that were eventless or normal would certainly work toward some revelation that maybe, it is not as dark as it is perceived. Sam may or may not be able to attest to this. In my 700 and some odd projects, I have had 700 and some odd customers. I have had two people who they have said I am not sure I would use him again. I have two out of 700, that's pretty miniscule in terms of success rate, or failure rate. So, this isn't a competence issue. This is a frustration with protocol. I am trying to accomplish something. I feel like the City sometimes doesn't support the protocol, doesn't support that, doesn't support progress. And I take it upon myself to evaluate the risk and impose progress. And I am here again because, I have done it, inadvertently again, but I think Alan's observation is an appropriate one, and I would accept that as the outline. I feel that's clear. Schneider: Can I ask a question? When was the license issued, the City of Fort Collins license? Coldiron: I can look it up for you if you want me to figure it out. Schneider: Do you know David, when? Houts: The DC, Dl was issued in January/February of'06 and the D2 was issued in July of'07. So, when I first moved to town, I got my license with the City of Fort Collins, through the previous experience clauses that at that time existed. There was no big huge giant protocol. I worked in the City of Fort Collins for four or five years. My license lapsed because I was working in Larimer County, Weld Count, City of Greeley and Loveland. I did a lot of consulting. Before I came to Fort Collins, I was in California, the Bay area. I did 400 and some odd projects and so that is why the license is relatively recent here. I had a license in Douglas County. Schneider: Let me go back to this as, I don't necessarily know if it is a competency issue. What I think it's understanding the code and how to proceed and what questions and how to move forward on a project. Especially, it's been made perfectly clear the six-plex was something new, had violations. The demolition was something new, had violations. So that is where my concern is. That every time there is an embarkment on something new, there are issues, so I don't know if there is necessarily a question in my mind about the competency, it is just about every time there is an embarkment on a new adventure, a new procedure, there has been issues that arrised, because of maybe not looking into the protocol and looking into the process and procedures to the degree that you need to in order to know what you should and shouldn't do. And I guess to reiterate again is, I have a hard time saying that he needs to come back before us without some list of what you need to fulfill these requirements. I understand the ability to finish the projects and have a clean bill of health, but that doesn't give us enough time to demonstrate his willingness to, I don't know how long is left on that time frame, but if we're talking a couple of months, that is not enough time to show history, in my opinion, that it won't repeat itself either. Cram: Felix is there some way that he could go out and ascertain from Loveland, or Larimer County, something about the history of his inspections? Lee: Well, I think there would be, yeah. I would think there would be records. Cram: And that might be a way to provide the substantiation for what he is saying, that he has completed projects in this area recently and in a reasonable manner. Does that help clarify any? BRB March 27, 2008 Pg. 28 Schneider: It does. I guess I had to reiterate, the six-plex was something new, had the violations. The demolition was something that falls under his license, his D 1 license, but never doing so, he didn't do, he didn't go above and beyond to know the proper protocol and procedure. I guess that is where I am having the hardship with this, not necessarily the stuff that he is performing in the past. I am sure he has done a fine job and there is no issue, it's just that when he has tried something new, I am not seeing the going above and beyond to understand what takes place in order proceed. Cram: Well short of having a tailored made course, I can't think of anything at CSU or even Front Range, other than CSU's construction management curriculum and that's a several year project. Schneider: But there are IRC courses that are available throughout the state. That talks. Cram: Then that might be what you want to specify, that he completes one of those. Smilie: Those probably wouldn't cover particularly the amendments to the City of Fort Collins and how the permitting process works in the City. I think it would be a great step. You're not offering, at this point, any of the city amendment classes except maybe on the IBC once it is adopted, right? Lee: I guess I would interject here. Are you looking for technical competence, because our tests are strictly code related? They are not business practices in any way, shape, or form. Smilie: They do cover somewhat the permitting process, in terms of how, it's not in-depth, but there are some questions. Lee: Yeah, that's true. Houts: It says that you are supposed to comply to the city ordinances. That's what it says. Cram: Well we don't know when your next job might be in Fort Collins. It could be a year. Houts: I have six projects on the Board, duplexes and single family homes. Cram: I was going to say there might some time, that you might be able to come back and say we did this. Houts: I propose that we finish the two jobs that we need permits for and I come before you in 60 days to visit this again. I am still, everyone seems to not give value to the journey that Raven View went through. The misrepresentation that the City inadvertently gave me regarding the permit issues, the licensing, four and a half month duration for a licensing process on a permit that was approved. Lee: Okay, I get to interject, if I may. I want to respond. I completely refute those assertions, there was ample notification. It was up to the applicant to decide when they wanted to apply. We don't dictate and it is totally on the shoulders of the applicant. I don't accept it. BRB March 27, 2008 Pg. 29 Houts: I remove my comment. I am sorry. The point is, I am sorry fellas. I messed up. It wasn't intentional. I am learning from my mistakes. I am going to take $25,000 dollars out of my pocket and pay for them. I get it. So, I want to provide a living for my family in the City of Fort Collins. That's all I want to do. If I can't do that, then I'll go find someplace to do it. I would like to propose that I come back in 60 days which will be about the time the demolition work and maybe most of the six-plexes will be done. At least two or three, if not all of them, and we can review that then, if you guys at that time want to. I will look at research, I will look at ethical, just saying that word shocks me, but I will overturn stones, to find out how I can enhance my professional position and I can bring that to you at that time. Gust: Well if we do, well if my motion goes through and we do that, I would suggest that you do not have projects signed under contract when you come here. There might be a very good chance that you may not get approved. My opinion is that the applicant should, that's on his responsibility to come here and say I did this, I did that. If we set some kind of a class, then that is just something that he can try to hit. It would mean more to me, be better, if he came with, these are all of the things that I have done to impress you and this is why I can come back here and do work. That's my opinion on that. Schneider: I guess the questions, follow through with the motion because I have a different motion if this one doesn't go through. Smilie: I think we have to deal with the one we've got on the board Schneider: That is what I am saying. Smilie: If the prior motion has been withdrawn we can hear a new one. Otherwise Gust: I haven't withdrawn it. Smilie: I think we can entertain an additional motion after that one is considered, if you have something to offer in terms of something that would be informative. Coldiron: Did I hear a, there is not a withdraw then? There was not a withdraw? Okay, I am sorry. Smilie: That was seconded, right? It was not seconded. Coldiron: It has not been seconded. Smilie: Has not been seconded. Carr: I'll second his motion. Eckman: What's the motion on the table? Carr: Better restate the motion. Coldiron: Here is what I have, or do you want... BRB March 27, 2008 Pg. 30 Gust: I can restate that. The motion was to reinstate both licenses immediately, finish both projects and then the license would be under review for the next project and the, Mr. Houts, would come here with further information to us to indicate that he was qualified to continue on working in the City of Fort Collins in his, the information that he would bring to us would make, give us the ability to make that decision. Smilie: So basically, his response at that time could be just a personal appeal that says, I've got my information together, I know how to make permit requests, I know how to sequence my construction so as to not get stop work orders, I know how to pay attention to a building permit that's signed off as do not proceed to insulate or sheet rock, and if he can persuade of that, that may be all it would take to get his license reinstated. Am I correct in assuming that? So, really, there is no particular requirement other than for him to do that? Eckman: What I am hearing is that it's a motion to allow the completion of these pending projects which were the six-plex and this demolition project and beyond that the license is revoked until the Board is persuaded. It's the same thing as what I heard? Gust: I guess, yeah that's true. Eckman: He would have to show you the same thing that anyone else with a revoked license would have to show you, I gather. Gust: That's the way I would like to have it. Eckman: And we don't get specific on how to reinstate a revoked license, in terms of what has to be done, do we? Lee: He has to appear before the Board Eckman: What does the code say? Lee: It says that the, when a license or certificate is revoked, a new license or certificate shall not be granted without approval of the Board. So, it is fairly wide open. In deciding whether to approve such new license or certificate, the Board shall determine whether the applicant has demonstrated that any disciplinary actions that have been taken against the contractor license have resulted in the rehabilitation of the applicant to good and disciplined character for lawful conduct as a licensed contractor or certified supervisor as applicable. So that's a revocation. Gust: That's the way I'd like to have that formed then. Smilie: That leaves us wide open in terms of what we choose to look at and what he chooses to present. Eckman: Within the language of the code, which makes sense to me from a legal perspective, that we kind of know what, that we don't have some odd ball name for this action, that the Board's going to take? That we call it a revocation, except for, and I think the record can be clear and David would know also, what he's supposed to come back with. Because I was concerned that we'd call it something else and then he comes back and says well, I have been to Sunday BRB March 27, 2008 Pg. 31 School and the Board says well, that's not good enough. And so we need to know more specifically or else go the traditional route that the code calls for. Smilie: The motion presenter I think seems to be in agreement with that. How about the second? Second in agreement? Carr: I second it. I think I did second it. Smilie: Okay I think we are ready for a vote Schneider: Can I ask a question about the motion, just so I'm understanding how to vote? The license is suspended at this time, but he's allowed to finish the two projects, the demolition and then the six-plex? Smilie: Yeah. I think the term is actually revocation at this point, except for completing those two projects. Because there is a process in city code for reinstating a revoked license that matches pretty much what's been said. Schneider: Okay. My next question is, is there a time? Does he have to complete those two prior to coming back in front of the Board to try and reinstate his license, or can he come back next month? Do you see what I am saying? That's where my motion was going. Carr: He won't finish those projects in less than 60 days, right? Schneider: My question is more... Smilie: Do we want to put in a timeline? Schneider: Do we want to put a time limit, for him to complete the two prior to, before his license gets possibly reinstated in full? He could come back here next month and not be finished with those two projects and then we don't have the track record that we are possibly looking for to show evidence and proof of his change. Cram: Are you proposing a friendly amendment that says that the two projects must be completed? Don't put a number of days? Schneider: Correct. And the friendly amendment would be to have the two permits or two projects completed with sign off from the City of Fort Collins prior to coming back in front of the Board for reinstatement. Smilie: Would that be all six units in the six-plex? Schneider: Correct. Smilie: I accept that as a friendly amendment. Lee: When you refer to "if', I am sorry to interrupt, but when you refer to projects you mean the demolition project? BRB March 27, 2008 Pg. 32 Gust: The demolition project and the... Lee: And the six-plex. Gust: Right. Lee: Okay, just want it for clarity. Gust: Both completed. Smilie: So Delynn, does that make sense? Coldiron: Yes. Smilie: Okay, and that was a friendly amendment that was accepted by the motion maker and the seconder. Coldiron: Okay. Yeas: Can, Packard, Cram, Smilie, Smith, Gust, Schneider Nays: 6. Other Business • IBC Update Lee stated that the first reading for the IBC had been postponed to May 6, 2008. The proposed local Property Maintenance Code, Building Conditions Code and the Rental Housing Standards are all on first reading for May 20, 2008. Meeting adjourned at 3:36 p.m. Felix LeeClWilding & Zoning Director Michael Smilie, Chairperson